Exploring the Claim for "Intelligent Design"

[POI]

I can't expect unbelievers to follow the data that leads to intelligent design.

irreducible complexity is associated with the concept of ID...and ID is a concept/movement that I'm standing 10 toes down, and two feet in.

(Kitzmiller v. Dover) ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design, or I.D., in a "science" class. Okay, I think even Since_1985 might agree here in that I.D. has no place in a 'science' class.

However, while following the data in this trial, the claim to "irreducible complexity" was also challenged. Emphasis/focus was placed upon "bacterial flagellum" by creationists. By using logic, and not the "scientific method", skeptics to I.D., while 'following the data', placed forth a case which basically debunks the notion of "irreducible complexity", while addressing the "bacterial flagellum". In a nutshell, after testimony was placed forth to refute 'irreducible complexity', again sighting the "bacterial flagellum", the I.D. side of the isle had no further pushback or rebuttal. For anyone who is interested in all the specifics, a 2-hour documentary can be found here, as I do not wish to write a text-wall:



For debate: While following the data, "irreducible complexity' may not be a grounded rationale to remain in the I.D. camp. Thus, why still continue, two feet in, on the position of I.D. anyways? Faith, other reason(s)?

[SiNcE_1985]

For debate: While following the data, "irreducible complexity' may not be a grounded rationale to remain in the I.D. camp. Thus, why still continue, two feet in, on the position of I.D. anyways? Faith, other reason(s)?

Wow, did you already have this post ready and waiting in the wings?

Im all about being prepared, but you ran off the deep in with it.

Anyways..

1. While I applaud the ID'ers for their efforts in taking this to trial, the results of the trial, whether win or lose, would not be for the greater good.

The concept of ID is against mainstream science, and I'm inclined to believe that the majority of all scientists are naturalists/materialists.

So to try to get ID in the classroom would be like trying to fit a squared peg into a round hole.

They simply won't allow it.

If science teachers (who are against ID) had to suddenly and begrudgingly start teaching ID in the classrooms, it would be an academic outrage and they would appeal the decision and then the question of separation of church and state would be debated and all kinds of outrageous, over-the-top, panic behaviors would transpire.

Hell, and it wouldn't surprise me if they went on strike.

So, we need not take it there.

2. And since we (ID'ers) didn't win in court, what we should do is continue to intellectually spank them in debates and discussions on talk radio shows, podcasts, and on university campuses..on these issues.

Which is what we've been doing, and should continue to do.

Speaking of which, an excellent discussion on this issue, Stephen Meyer vs Peter Atkins.

I was listening to their discussion on this issue and Stephen Meyer completely destroyed Peter Atkins.

That's what we need more of, right there.

3. As far as my personal belief in ID, it has nothing to do with faith, my friend.

I am simply appealing to the best explanation.

Let's say a 300lb weight was used to break through thick glass at a bank as part of a heist.

That said, I have only two suspects..

1. A frail, 92 year old Mother Teresa looking woman.

Or..

2. A young, Ronnie Coleman (X time Mr. Olympian), bodybuilder type, looking man.

If I'm a detective on the case and I'm appealing to the best explanation to produce the effect of the broken glass; and I begin to consider the weight used to break the glass, and the strength needed to pick up the weight and hurl it, and my two suspects..my suspect of choice would be #2.

It has nothing to do with faith, imagination, intellectual laziness, or wishful thinking.

It has everything to do with logic, reasoning, and common sense (at the very least).

That is the same rationale that is used with ID.

We see..

1. Order.
2. Function.
3. Complexity.

And we recognize that those three things, especially when working simultaneously, all have intelligence (a mind) behind it.

An intelligent component.

Never failing.

Skeptics of ID recognize this as well, except as it pertains to the universe as a whole..which is a text book example of the taxicab fallacy.

They are willing to ride the taxi to all the stops that they know require intelligent design, but once the taxi begins to head towards the stop of a Cosmic Creator Agent for the universe, they want to get out of the cab, because they don't like where it's going all of a sudden?

Taxicab fallacy.

[POI]

We see..

1. Order.
2. Function.
3. Complexity.

And we recognize that those three things, especially when working simultaneously, all have intelligence (a mind) behind it.

An intelligent component.

Never failing.

Skeptics of ID recognize this as well, except as it pertains to the universe as a whole..which is a text book example of the taxicab fallacy.

After reading through your given diatribe, I noticed you did not even address the meat and potatoes of this created thread at all. In the given trial, ID-ers opted to bring forth the "bacterial flagellum" as an example to demonstrate 'irreducible complexity.' Do you (agree or disagree) that "bacterial flagellum" should NO LONGER be used as a viable example for "irreducible complexity"? If you disagree, please explain why?

[SiNcE_1985]

After reading through your given diatribe, I noticed you did not even address the meat and potatoes of this created thread at all.

In the given trial, ID-ers opted to bring forth the "bacterial flagellum" as an example to demonstrate 'irreducible complexity.'

If that's what they did, then that's what they did.

I said that the trial was irrelevant/meaningless, and explained why during my diatribe.

And based on my explanation, it is clear that my position goes well beyond just some rinky dinky trial..I am talking about the irreducible complexity of the universe, as a whole.

Do you (agree or disagree) that "bacterial flagellum" should NO LONGER be used as a viable example for "irreducible complexity"? If you disagree, please explain why?

I dont know, as I haven't looked into it.

But my go-to viable example of irreducible complexity is that of the anatomy of the human body..the order, the parts, the functions, the systems, and the complexity.

[POI]

I dont know, as I haven't looked into it.

Well, then you haven't addressed the premise of this thread at all. Please tell me if this topic supports the position to support "irreducible complexity", or not? Well-educated theists placed their entire case upon it and lost miserably, while following the data.

[SiNcE_1985]

Well, then you haven't addressed the premise of this thread at all.

I shared my thoughts on..

1. The trial.

2. Irreducible complexity.

3. Intelligent design.

I stated how I explore the claims of intelligent design, by following the data and appealing to the best explanation.

If that's not good enough for you, then too bad.

Please tell me if this topic supports the position to support "irreducible complexity", or not?

I did, and until I get a response to what I've been saying, I'm standing by what I said and that's all you're gonna get from me.

Well-educated theists placed their entire case upon it and lost miserably, while following the data.

Um, you are misrepresenting the case results.

According to the Wikipedia article on the trial, IDers lost the trial, not because there wasn't evidence for Intelligent Design, but because..

"Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3, of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

So ID isn't taught because...

1. The court ruled that it isn't science.

2. It has too much religious implication and was ruled a violation of the First Amendment, which even I stated it would be and that was before I even read up on the final ruling of the case.

So, I'm kindly asking you to address what I've been saying, instead of regurgitating some subtle point about bacterium whatever...a point of which, even if it is considered to be an example of Intelligent Design, it still wouldn't be taught in school (according to the official ruling) based on those two reasons already outlined.

And those two reasons for ID not being taught are independent of whether or not there is evidence for ID.

[1213]

...
For debate: While following the data, "irreducible complexity' may not be a grounded rationale to remain in the I.D. camp. Thus, why still continue, two feet in, on the position of I.D. anyways? Faith, other reason(s)?

I remain in I.D. position, because I think the design is intelligent. If we take for example an orange. Very nice that it is sliced ready inside the peel and therefore nice to eat.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to I Am Here in post #8]

It is less about evidence, and more about keeping the "G" word (or any concept of the "G" word") out of classrooms.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to I Am Here in post #8]

It is less about evidence, and more about keeping the "G" word (or any concept of the "G" word") out of classrooms.

Both you and readers know this is baloney. The only thing we want to keep out of classrooms is things that aren't based on reality. I'm guessing if you had kids in the school system and your children came home praising Allah and thinking Christians are delusional you would be pretty intent on getting those teachings out of your school system.

School should focus on teaching children how to think critically. It should not be focused (or even bring up) any particular religious faith as 'truth'.

I'm all for teaching children what religions are. There are many practiced today and have been many more practiced in the past. However, picking one and proclaiming it true, based on nothing but pointing to a book/personal faith/feelings/bogus pseudo science, should not be allowed (and you will agree with this for all other religions besides your favorite one).

It's perfectly fine to teach "Christians believe in this god, Greeks believed in these gods, the Norse believe in those gods, etc." What's not fine is picking one when none have been shown to exist and then pretend that one is true.

In fact, I would encourage learning about the various religious practices in school during History. Often children have had no exposure to the fact that there exist thousands of different religions. I understand why most Christians probably don't want their young children taught this before they've been indoctrinated with their parents faith though. Can't have that.

[POI]

Well, then you haven't addressed the premise of this thread at all.

I shared my thoughts on..

1. The trial.

2. Irreducible complexity.

3. Intelligent design.

I stated how I explore the claims of intelligent design, by following the data and appealing to the best explanation.

If that's not good enough for you, then too bad.

Then you are not addressing the thread, until you first acknowledge whether or not "bacterial flagellum" is applicable. If you want to explore the 'design' of the human body, we can explore after, as the debate question suggests.

I did

You stated -> "I dont know, as I haven't looked into it"

Well, the thread is based upon (whether or not) "bacterial flagellum" is a good example to argue for irreducible complexity? I say it is not. What say you?

Um, you are misrepresenting the case results.

The case failed because it was deemed to be religious, and no religion has a place in any science class. My point is that ID-ers also tried to follow the data regarding the claim that "bacterial flagellum" supports irreducible complexity. They were destroyed. Do you also agree that "bacterial flagellum" should never again be used as an example to support irreducible complexity? The video explains....

Alternatively, one of your favorite allies wants to continue using it (i.e.):

https://answersingenesis.org/intelligen ... -movement/

Why are they still pushing hot steamy doo doo?