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]

If the KCA, or other, is what you are referring to, then you should only address that/those topic(s).

What??

Yes they are. If you had watched the video, you would know why.

Question,

Bacteria flagella, are they sentient? Yes or no?

And instead of going down any red herring rabbit holes with you and whatever answer you were gonna come up with to stall progress, let me answer the question for you..

The answer is no, they aren't sentient.

So, that means that they are not interchangeable (at least in the context that I'm using the term), and I didn't need to watch any videos to draw that conclusion either.

You did that, in the 'Evilution' thread. And when I addressed the first point from that video, you completely aborted.

It was aborted for good reason.

I said what I had to say and kept it pushing.

Nor am I. I have stated that I post them to avoid typing text-walls. You are in the business to support Mr. Hovind's outlandish claims but care not to support them. Hence, I'd recommend stop quoting him.

Well, his main claim is that..

"Dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish, etc".

That's no outlandish claim, that is an observation that can be made at any zoo, farm, backyard, or wherever on earth an animal is giving birth.

Well, since your education tells you there is little evidence for evolution, I thought I would provide a 4-minute tutorial video to explain the area(s) you either completely missed, or flat out deny, in regard to what evolutionary biology has discovered.

Tell ya what...show me a video of any animal giving birth to a different kind of animal than what the mother is.

That's a video I'd love to watch.

You can keep the rest to yourself.

Sorry buddy. You might want to re-read my OP. I stated I do not want to type a text wall. Sometimes, it's easier to watch a video, rather than to transcribe a novel.

Um, you should be able to condense your position into a summary.

If you are unable to do that, then you don't understand your position well enough.

What do they have Einstein as being quoted?

"If you cant explain it, then you don't understand it well enough".

Again, with Kent Hovind.... Anywho...

Kent doesn't like to pay taxes, and neither do I.

My kinda guy.

Does this mean you agree humans share direct common ancestry with the great apes, yes or no?

No.

(Please pick one):

a) If yes, then the "Adam and Eve" story must be spun. (i.e.) Christian apologetics abound...

b) If no, then you have not watched the tutorial video, which would require me to type in a text-wall. Which means it's much easier to post a 4-minute video.

Sure, it is easier to post.

That is where our agreements end.

Yes. I can. But it is clear you have either: 1) not been exposed to what the 4-minute video provides, or, 2) have been exposed and hand-waved it away. But since you have not watched it, you do not know yet. I do not want to write a novel explaining something you may just very well ignore or other.

Dogs produce dogs.

The typing of that ^ factual statement took even less time than the duration of the video.

That's not my position AT ALL. The arguments for KCA and ID and/or IC suggest, at best, an impersonal agency which applies no more or less emphasis on humans, verses any other species or materialism. Such a 'prime mover' apparently applied natural law(s) to allow for things to develop the way they are. Evolutionary biology is merely one of many lines of evidence(s) to demonstrate that "natural processes" rule the roost. And you merely reject the ones which conflict with the Bible. For (Christian theism) to instead be true, requires vast amounts of apologetics. You are required to become the sultan of spin. Sorry. And as soon as we explore the 'human body', you will find that in order to support the notion of "intelligent design", requires the same arguments as the ID-ers in the court case used to argue for bacterial flagellum.

Great outline. Still not sure of the point being made, though.

Remember what we discussed prior, about the sciences which are, and are not, theoretical? Well, evolutionary biology is one of them. Abiogenesis is not. I provided a simple 4-minute video, (which means I do not need to type a novel), which clearly explains why evolutionary biology continues to be well supported.

Neither are true.

It kind of does... If deism IS true, then theism is false, which means Jesus is false.

Not really newsworthy.

Because if any kind of "ism" is true (besides Christianity), then Christianity is false.

This asserted "prime mover" is either (not personal or personal). Which one is it?

The second one.

Of the two, I'd say it's the former, as FAITH is much required to instead believe the later. And faith can be applied to anything. I merely follow the evidence where-ever it leads me.

There are such thing as reasonable faith, and blind faith.

You do know the difference, right?

Looks like you may have broken the provided compromise proposal?

Not sure what you are talking about here.

You didn't accept the compromise, so it's a dead issue anyway.

Evidence leads more-so to an impersonal agency, at best. Which means it might as well be non-existent. It has little to do with 'morals', but instead about logic.

Opinions.

[POI]

What??

If you have bigger fish to fry, go fry them and stop addressing thread(s) which don't involve the "fish" you wish to fry. No one is forcing you to reply to the areas in which you then later all of a sudden deem unworthy to continue upon.

The answer is no, they aren't sentient. So, that means that they are not interchangeable (at least in the context that I'm using the term), and I didn't need to watch any videos to draw that conclusion either.

On the OP, and at the very beginning of our exchange, we began discussing I.C. You agree it is needed and necessary in discussing ID.

This means that institutions you respect, such as "The Discovery Institute" or "Answers in Genesis", are inept. Why? They both use bacterial flagellum to argue for ID, while using I.C. Do you agree these two institutions are inept? I doubt it. Which means bacterial flagellum is relevant.

It was aborted for good reason.

If (belief preservation) is 'good reason', so-be-it.

"Dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish, etc". That's no outlandish claim, that is an observation that can be made at any zoo, farm, backyard, or wherever on earth an animal is giving birth.

Tell ya what...show me a video of any animal giving birth to a different kind of animal than what the mother is. That's a video I'd love to watch. You can keep the rest to yourself.

Based upon your statement(s) above, it is clear you do not even know what evolutionary biology proposes. It's quite likely you are arguing against a strawman.

Um, you should be able to condense your position into a summary.

I would need to provide more than a summary. You've studied this topic and still do not know the basics of what evolutionary biology proposes on the topic.

Kent doesn't like to pay taxes, and neither do I. My kinda guy.

My point is that you should stop quoting Hovind when you are not prepared to fight his fight about the aforementioned topics.

That is where our agreements end.

Since you have studied the topic, then I guess you must already be familiar with chromosome #2 in the human? You must also already be familiar with where telomeres and centromeres belong on a chromosome? And in the GNOME, were you also aware that the precise fusion of two chromosomes was also located at base number 114,000,455,823?

Great outline. Still not sure of the point being made, though.

My point is that one does not have to do with the other at all. Meaning, deism vs evolution.

Neither are true.

You might be partially correct, if your current perceived position on evolution was an actual reality. But it is not.

The second one.

Faith-based assertions can be asserted basically anywhere... To assert an interpersonal agency requires much of this...

There are such thing as reasonable faith, and blind faith.

In regard to "reasonable faith", you (might or might not) be able to argue for the former, in deism. But with theism, it's definitely more blind faith based.

Not sure what you are talking about here. You didn't accept the compromise, so it's a dead issue anyway.

What exactly was "the compromise" again???

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Is this about exploring the arguments for ID or about keeping science and religion separate?
One can argue for the idea of ID without bringing organised religion into it at all. How is such ruling any different to how religion has treated opposition?

While the scientific method limits the scope of inquiry to empirical, testable phenomena, this doesn’t mean that ID or the notion of "nature’s intelligence" lacks value. Instead, it points to a need for alternative frameworks where such ideas can be explored.

Arguments for ID are different from claims for ID.

Focusing on arguments for ID provides a stronger and more defensible position than relying on specific claims for ID. Arguments allow proponents to explore the plausibility of design as a philosophical or metaphysical concept without becoming bogged down in contentious scientific disputes. This approach also fosters a more productive dialogue between science, philosophy, and theology, rather than framing the debate as an either/or conflict.

By keeping claims and arguments for ID outside science classrooms and placing them in alternative forums like philosophy or interdisciplinary courses, we can foster richer intellectual engagement while preserving the integrity of science education. This balanced approach respects both the methodological boundaries of science and the broader human quest to understand purpose and meaning.

Putting the shoe on the other foot, strictly scientific arguments can stay out of ID related arguments or claims because the process of science is ill equipped for such use.

Just as ID claims and arguments are best kept out of science classrooms because they transcend the scientific method, scientific arguments should also be kept out of metaphysical ID discussions when they overstep their methodological boundaries. Respecting the distinct domains of science and ID allows for a more productive and respectful dialogue, preserving the integrity of each approach while encouraging a richer exploration of the mysteries of existence

[POI]

Is this about 1) exploring the arguments for ID or 2) about keeping science and religion separate?

Mostly 1).

This thread was created in response to a particular interlocutor. If you look at the quoted passages from this interlocutor on top of the OP, you will see he is basing his findings upon intelligent design (ID) while using irreducible complexity (I.C.). This individual likely already agrees that 'science' is not the correct tool to use to explore ID. But, he does want to use the tool (I.C.) to explore ID. Well, the court case demonstrates that I.C. may not be the best tool for the job either, in exploring ID. Since_1985 wants to instead focus upon the human body, because humans contain a mind. However, I.C. carries little/no bias between mindful vs less-than-mindful lifeforms.

I reckon the human body is a much worse example to use to represent I.C., as the body carries redundancy factors well above and beyond the expressed bacterial flagellum. Which is likely why the ID-ers in court chose to reference this bacterium as the best 'gotcha'. Well, the ID-ers were quickly defeated. And yet, some public pseudoscience organizations are still doubling down on this now demonstrated debunked argument.

Is I.C. a viable tool to explore ID? If so, why? If not, which is the position I currently hold, (minute-64 to minute-76) explains exactly why not.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #44]

[Replying to POI in post #190]

Following the breadcrumbs the specific interlocutor is simply trying to argue "God" as the ID Source - but doesn't elaborate and in relation to science process, is being pointless.

Can you please define your version of ID?

Sure. I define ID as a Cosmic Casual Agent.

AKA..

God.

Many, under this umbrella term, will place an argument from "irreducible complexity" and go from there.

They do. And I do.

And you are correct, 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.

Others might go down a differing route or path.

Correct. Some do.

I'd really like to know your specific rationale, and then 'follow the data' accordingly. Thanks.

My specific rationale is that...

God did it.

Based on the data that I followed accordingly.

Please don't take it as a smart aleck response, but you asked .

What exploring is being done re the claim of "God" as the ID? What does it even mean? Christians don't even seem to agree on any specifics re that.

I don't think this thread is really about exploring ID "claims" or even ID arguments. Be nice to see such an interest in ID arguments rather than claims of "God" or claims of otherwise.

Still, I had to ask and thanks for answering and making that clear.

Cheers
.

[SiNcE_1985]

If you have bigger fish to fry, go fry them and stop addressing thread(s) which don't involve the "fish" you wish to fry. No one is forcing you to reply to the areas in which you then later all of a sudden deem unworthy to continue upon.

You're the one who invited me to the thread, sir.

I thought the thread was supposed to be about intelligent design/irreducible complexity, in general.

I didn't know you had this mentally of "bacteria flagella and nothing else"...and I also didn't know I would get borderline-harrassed to watch a video that isn't even, in my opinion, the best example one could give for ID/IC.

On the OP, and at the very beginning of our exchange, we began discussing I.C. You agree it is needed and necessary in discussing ID.

This means that institutions you respect, such as "The Discovery Institute" or "Answers in Genesis", are inept. Why? They both use bacterial flagellum to argue for ID, while using I.C. Do you agree these two institutions are inept? I doubt it. Which means bacterial flagellum is relevant.

I respect those institutions, but I disagree with their approach.

If "they" jumped off a bridge because their love for ID pushed them over the edge with excitement, I guess I'm supposed to jump off a bridge as well?

No.

I have my own mind and my own brain, and refuse to be boxed in with others unless my position is accurately depicted with theirs.

If (belief preservation) is 'good reason', so-be-it.

More like belief confirmation.

Based upon your statement(s) above, it is clear you do not even know what evolutionary biology proposes. It's quite likely you are arguing against a strawman.

I'm not.

If you go back far enough in time, you'll find that the modern day elephant's ancestors look fundamentally different than it does today.

Now, how do you get from one to the other is your conjectured guess...but either way, no matter whether it allegedly happened suddenly, or gradually...this violates the observation of dogs produce dogs.

You can use your imagination to imagine whatever you like, but I'm not being sold on it.

I would need to provide more than a summary. You've studied this topic and still do not know the basics of what evolutionary biology proposes on the topic.

Here is what man's thousands of years of observation of the topic proposes..

Dogs produce dogs..

I'm not about to be gaslighted to believe that things were otherwise millions of years ago, when no one was conveniently around to witness it.

My point is that you should stop quoting Hovind when you are not prepared to fight his fight about the aforementioned topics.

Dogs produce dogs. That is both of our fight.

Since you have studied the topic, then I guess you must already be familiar with chromosome #2 in the human? You must also already be familiar with where telomeres and centromeres belong on a chromosome? And in the GNOME, were you also aware that the precise fusion of two chromosomes was also located at base number 114,000,455,823?

No, but I am aware of Stephen Meyer who wrote Signature in the Cell, and who believes that the origins of life (living cells/DNA) is best explained by intelligent design and how random chance will not give you the order and information needed for DNA to exist.

He thinks this despite whatever point you are trying to make above.

That, followed by the fact that you are putting the cart before the horse (as is what most evolutionists do).

First, explain to me how living cells came to be, along with the DNA information in those cells.

My point is that one does not have to do with the other at all. Meaning, deism vs evolution.

Which is nothing more than..

"Im not foolish enough to believe that intelligent isn't necessary, but I also don't like the idea of a cosmic creator who commands me around and will hold me morally accountable for my actions.

So, what I'll do is, imagine a being that doesn't hold me accountable, but still created me, nevertheless."

That's really all it is.

You might be partially correct, if your current perceived position on evolution was an actual reality. But it is not.

Evolution can't be true, while abiogenesis is false.

On atheism.

Faith-based assertions can be asserted basically anywhere... To assert an interpersonal agency requires much of this...

I don't have faith, I have reasons.

In regard to "reasonable faith", you (might or might not) be able to argue for the former, in deism. But with theism, it's definitely more blind faith based.

I actually agree. Kinda.

If I didn't have reasons to believe in Christianity, I might be a deist.

What exactly was "the compromise" again???

I'll become active on your beloved "Evolution" thread again, if you'll create a thread pertaining to my beloved KCA topic.

That was the compromise..and it will go down in history as The Great Compromise of 2024.

2,000 years from now, this compromise will be the standard and posterchild for compromise, bipartisanship, and sacrifice.

It will be shown to politicians, relationship couples, and even world leaders.

In fact, world peace will be achieved because of it.

[SiNcE_1985]

What exploring is being done re the claim of "God" as the ID? What does it even mean? Christians don't even seem to agree on any specifics re that.

I don't think this thread is really about exploring ID "claims" or even ID arguments. Be nice to see such an interest in ID arguments rather than claims of "God" or claims of otherwise.

Still, I had to ask and thanks for answering and making that clear.

Cheers
.

To take "God" out of "Intelligent Design", would be like trying to take the "wet" out of the "water".

The attempt itself is foolish.

Not sure what you're talking about here.

[POI]

I thought the thread was supposed to be about intelligent design/irreducible complexity, in general. I didn't know you had this mentally of "bacteria flagella and nothing else"...and I also didn't know I would get borderline-harrassed to watch a video that isn't even, in my opinion, the best example one could give for ID/IC.

If you were familiar with the proponents of IC, you would realize that bacterial flagellum is a better fit than the human body. I also explained in post 44 to William.

I respect those institutions, but I disagree with their approach. If "they" jumped off a bridge because their love for ID pushed them over the edge with excitement, I guess I'm supposed to jump off a bridge as well? No. I have my own mind and my own brain, and refuse to be boxed in with others unless my position is accurately depicted with theirs.

Since you agree with the definition of IC I gave to you. it is illogical to opt for the "human body" over bacterial flagellum. In this case, the Discovery Institute brought their A game, in sighting an appropriate example, but they still failed miserably. If I was to instead address the human body, as it relates to IC, it would fall apart much quicker, which is why the Discovery Institute opted for a better example.

More like belief confirmation.

Sorry. Ignoring incoming data to instead preserve an existing position is an example of belief preservation.

I'm not. If you go back far enough in time, you'll find that the modern day elephant's ancestors look fundamentally different than it does today. Now, how do you get from one to the other is your conjectured guess...but either way, no matter whether it allegedly happened suddenly, or gradually...this violates the observation of dogs produce dogs. You can use your imagination to imagine whatever you like, but I'm not being sold on it.

You do not get it. And neither does Mr. Hovind. In Hovind's case, he either actually understands what evolutionary biology proposes, or he is inept. I think he knows, but is a conman. In your case, I'm not sure yet? I think you still fundamentally do not understand what it even states. The reason I think this is because people like you make the following statements, which is not what evolutionary biology teaches in the classroom. I suggest taking some scholarly crash course, as a brief summary by me will likely not suffice here. I'm not here to write a text-wall in which you will likely hand-wave away....

Here is what man's thousands of years of observation of the topic proposes.. Dogs produce dogs.. I'm not about to be gaslighted to believe that things were otherwise millions of years ago, when no one was conveniently around to witness it.

Without understanding the human chromosome #2, and understanding where telomeres and centromeres belong, and also understanding the precise fusion point in Chromosome #2, you will continue to fight a strawman. Sorry buddy.

No,

Then you are effectively attacking a strawman argument.

but I am aware of Stephen Meyer who wrote Signature in the Cell, and who believes that the origins of life (living cells/DNA) is best explained by intelligent design and how random chance will not give you the order and information needed for DNA to exist. He thinks this despite whatever point you are trying to make above. That, followed by the fact that you are putting the cart before the horse (as is what most evolutionists do). First, explain to me how living cells came to be, along with the DNA information in those cells.

Playing devil's advocate, why couldn't deism alone account for all of the above?

Which is nothing more than.. "Im not foolish enough to believe that intelligent isn't necessary, but I also don't like the idea of a cosmic creator who commands me around and will hold me morally accountable for my actions. So, what I'll do is, imagine a being that doesn't hold me accountable, but still created me, nevertheless." That's really all it is.

You keep misrepresenting my point. Again, I do not accept theism based upon logic, not morals.

Evolution can't be true, while abiogenesis is false. On atheism.

With all due respect, it is clear you do not know what evolutionary biology proposes. So, you would not know.

I don't have faith, I have reasons.

Yea, at least in part, based upon a false premise.

I actually agree. Kinda. If I didn't have reasons to believe in Christianity, I might be a deist.

Are any of the actual reason(s) based upon any of these zany apologetic's arguments? I doubt it. Most are not believers because they were made aware of apologetics, (i,e.) the KCA, the teleological argument, the moral argument, etc... These are just instead funsy exercises after one already believes - to reinforce their faith-based beliefs....

I'll become active on your beloved "Evolution" thread again, if you'll create a thread pertaining to my beloved KCA topic.

viewtopic.php?t=42143

Okay, please address the video in post 118 of the 'evolution' thread.

[William]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #47]

Not sure what you're talking about here.

My critique is aimed at pushing the discussion beyond mere theological or science-based assertions. "God" becomes a straw man when disconnected from the procedural rigor of critiqued observations.

Why are you framing the debate as if opponents are rejecting the concept of "God" in principle?

The issue is not with the idea of "God" itself but with the method by which such claims are introduced into broader discourse.

Teaching ID as synonymous with Christian theology risks conflating it with that particular religion (which is itself rife with internal disagreements). This undermines both the integrity of critical education and the boundaries between these distinct branches of thought.

For the idea of "God" to be considered validly within any structured framework, it must:
1. Present hypotheses without relying on theological presuppositions.
2. Distinguish itself from religious doctrine to align with consistent epistemological standards.

Additionally, I would ask: what methodology have you used to arrive at your understanding that "God" and ID are the same? Assertions like "God" and ID being as indistinguishable as wet is from water are simply opinions. These unsupported claims lack the rigorous evidence required for a useful discussion and remain unconvincing in this context.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Would the following be an actuate understanding of the video content?

The video details the intense cultural, educational, and legal conflict surrounding the teaching of intelligent design versus evolution in Dover, Pennsylvania. The dispute, which divided the town, began when the local school board required high school science classes to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. This policy led to a lawsuit arguing that intelligent design was religious in nature and therefore unconstitutional to teach in public school science classes.

Key Points:
Background and Initial Conflict:

The controversy started when a mural depicting human evolution was destroyed, signaling resistance to evolutionary theory.
The school board, led by members with creationist views, pushed to include intelligent design as part of the science curriculum.
Intelligent Design vs. Evolution:

Intelligent design posits that life is too complex to have arisen through natural processes, implying a designer’s role.
Critics argue that intelligent design is repackaged creationism and lacks scientific basis.
The Trial:

The case (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) became a landmark legal battle about the separation of church and state.
Evidence presented by plaintiffs demonstrated that intelligent design had roots in creationism, citing drafts of the textbook Of Pandas and People, which swapped "creationism" for "intelligent design" post-1987, following a Supreme Court ruling against teaching creationism.
Scientists provided extensive evidence supporting evolution, including genetic, fossil, and molecular biology data, while refuting claims of irreducible complexity—the cornerstone of intelligent design.
Outcome:

Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science but a religious view, thus violating the Establishment Clause.
The decision barred the teaching of intelligent design in Dover’s science classes and held the school board accountable for misleading the public about their motivations.
Aftermath:

The Dover school board was replaced in subsequent elections by candidates opposing intelligent design.
The ruling drew national attention, sparking debates about the role of religion in education and scientific literacy.
Broader Implications:
The trial highlighted ongoing tensions between scientific education and religious beliefs in America. While the ruling was a victory for science advocates, the persistence of intelligent design supporters and similar movements suggests the debate over evolution and its place in public education is far from settled.