[sprite]

Here is a quote directly from my Coast to Coast AM Newsletter about the show. Since I have trouble articulating my POV, I'll throw it out here and watch those better suited for such a conversation. I'm interested in where this is going... thanks

Quote from Coast to Coast AM Newsletter:

On Tuesday's show, former geophysicist and college professor, Stephen C. Meyer argued for the existence of intelligent design (ID) based upon DNA, and scientific evidence from such fields as biology, physics, chemistry, and cosmology. These new discoveries have outstripped the Darwinian approach, which never addressed where first life came from, he said. The earliest cellular life that emerged 3.8 billion years ago, such as blue-green algae, wasn't simple at all according to molecular biology research. Rather, such cell life was a highly complex "factory" run on a DNA code that was akin to advanced technology, he detailed, and this DNA reflects the purposeful design of an intelligent force.

We don't necessarily need religion in the picture to conclude that ID is in effect, he said, but of the two theories of who the designer is-- extraterrestrials or a God being, Meyer favors the latter explanation. Evidence of design is in the very fabric of the universe itself, he commented.

Materialism is the view that everything in the universe can ultimately be explained in physical terms, yet matter is a bad candidate to be primordial reality, Meyer stated. Biological systems contain intricate informational structures and their origin cannot be explained by just physical forces, he said.

End Of Quote...

I understand that he is leaning toward a God creating everything. I still don't think he is meaning the Christian, or any other God that we know of, or read about yet. If he is talking about what I think he is talking about, we may find that God is Pure Energy. This is what I've trusted in for years. We are energy first and body second. Our energy is kinetic. When we tap into our own energy, we are tapping into God. Whatever we are made of, it was created by someone/something far more intelligent that we can imagine or write about in a Bible.
Thats my take... Please respond. I'm listening and learning from all of you too.

This post has been edited by sprite: Jul 29 2009, 07:25 AM

[Uber Geek]

Here is a quote directly from my Coast to Coast AM Newsletter about the show. Since I have trouble articulating my POV, I'll throw it out here and watch those better suited for such a conversation. I'm interested in where this is going... thanks

Quote from Coast to Coast AM Newsletter:

On Tuesday's show, former geophysicist and college professor, Stephen C. Meyer argued for the existence of intelligent design (ID) based upon DNA, and scientific evidence from such fields as biology, physics, chemistry, and cosmology. These new discoveries have outstripped the Darwinian approach, which never addressed where first life came from, he said. The earliest cellular life that emerged 3.8 billion years ago, such as blue-green algae, wasn't simple at all according to molecular biology research. Rather, such cell life was a highly complex "factory" run on a DNA code that was akin to advanced technology, he detailed, and this DNA reflects the purposeful design of an intelligent force.

We don't necessarily need religion in the picture to conclude that ID is in effect, he said, but of the two theories of who the designer is-- extraterrestrials or a God being, Meyer favors the latter explanation. Evidence of design is in the very fabric of the universe itself, he commented.

Materialism is the view that everything in the universe can ultimately be explained in physical terms, yet matter is a bad candidate to be primordial reality, Meyer stated. Biological systems contain intricate informational structures and their origin cannot be explained by just physical forces, he said.

End Of Quote...

I understand that he is leaning toward a God creating everything. I still don't think he is meaning the Christian, or any other God that we know of, or read about yet. If he is talking about what I think he is talking about, we may find that God is Pure Energy. This is what I've trusted in for years. We are energy first and body second. Our energy is kinetic. When we tap into our own energy, we are tapping into God. Whatever we are made of, it was created by someone/something far more intelligent that we can imagine or write about in a Bible.
Thats my take... Please respond. I'm listening and learning from all of you too.

He is meaning the Christian God. He is the primary author of the "Wedge Strategy" document, and it clearly notes that evidence of "The Christian God" is found everywhere.

Again, the challenge to Dr. Meyer is to provide an experiment that is testable to prove the existence of an intelligent designer. One prime example of the goals of ID is when the Flying Spaghetti Monster was suggested to the Board of Education in Kansas, the entire ID idea was scrapped.

As for Darwinism not explaining the origins of life, it was never meant too. Darwinism only explains (And predicts) the way life changes through natural selection. This has been well tested, and is a predictable theory.

And if the idea that it was extra terrestrials who designed mankind, then how did the designers come to be? Or is it turtles all the way down?

So, ID fails every test of what is a scientific theory: Testable and can predict. Therefore, it is junk science. Parapsychology is closer to a science than what ID is. ID is at best, a philosophical idea.

This post has been edited by Uber Geek: Jul 29 2009, 07:44 AM

[cinnindeagh]

What Meyer and everyone else argues regarding Intelligent Design is based solely on their interpretation of intelligence. Humankind, an intelligent life, built computers. They compare computers to primordial ooze because DNA (what they compare to a complex computer system) is present.

Their entire premise is based on what they deem intelligent. It's arrogant and without anything to back it up other than the fact that they see intelligence in the design because hey, they're intelligent.

It's circular at best. They haven't come up with anything scientific to back up their ID theories, there are only unanswered questions.

Interestingly, as the various sciences make advances in their respective studies, the Discovery Institute (and like-minded individuals) immediately draws up a statement saying there has to be an intelligence, a God, that designed the mechanism and put it into play.

We humans have a habit of attaching something familiar to things we don't understand--it's a security mechanism. Their methods are akin to those of snake oil salesman. There's just enough information and even more questions that make another unknowing listener go...hmmmm Maybe???

The truth of the human race may be more fantastic than any of us can even comprehend. On the other hand, maybe ET did plant a few seeds on an unsuspecting planet (perhaps we're nothing more than the result of bodily fluids left behind during an interplanetary family outing).

That particular scenario, to me at least, is no less far-fetched than what the Discovery Institute suggests as they mangle information to fit their agenda.

[bking]

You don't have to get snide, If you don't agree with it you don't agree with it. I'm not a scientist but maybe post that question to Stephen Meyer or any other ID researcher. They might come up with something. But like I said before would it really matter if they did? It's always met with anger or laughter. Even though evolution falls short it's scientific fallacy to research a different avenue.

Not snide. You claim that ID is not junk science. I offered a litmus test for a true scientific theory. The same thing has been posed to all of the ID proponents, and they have offered naught.

Evolution as a whole does not fall short. Mechanisms of it might, but any biologist agrees that evolution did in fact occur. It's the small parts of "how" that are subject to debate right now.

And it would matter if they did put forth something like that, other than vague concepts of "Irreducible complexity" or "Fine-tuned universe". If they put forth substantive theories, rather than junk science they wouldn't be laughed at.

And it is not scientific fallacy to study other avenues. But the onus remains on the person suggesting a fringe theory to provide supportive research of it, not the other way around. By trying to put the onus on the people working in the main circles of science, it's called "Shifting the burden of proof".

So, to put it bluntly, to approach the topic assuming there is an intelligent designer, then working from there is what makes it a junk science. To use the words of a scientist here, "It's not right. It's not even wrong."

Sorry, I thought you were trying to sound condescending in your response. I think I’m coming off wrong. I agree with you in a sense that the ID proponents are taking the wrong approach to their research. They should do the research regardless of what the outcome will be and throw out the idea that they’re trying to prove a certain outcome and only gather testable data that can be peer reviewed. All I’m really trying to say is that what they propose doesn’t sound any more ridiculous to me then the “guesses” modern science makes to explain origin or claims made about a single common ancestor because they don’t have the evidence to support it. I read time and time again that researchers while “assuming common ancestry” come up with this new theory. Assuming is not evidence. I do not doubt that types of evolution occurred but to what extent and where it started is still open to any avenue in my book.

[Uber Geek]

Sorry, I thought you were trying to sound condescending in your response. I think I’m coming off wrong. I agree with you in a sense that the ID proponents are taking the wrong approach to their research. They should do the research regardless of what the outcome will be and throw out the idea that they’re trying to prove a certain outcome and only gather testable data that can be peer reviewed. All I’m really trying to say is that what they propose doesn’t sound any more ridiculous to me then the “guesses” modern science makes to explain origin or claims made about a single common ancestor because they don’t have the evidence to support it. I read time and time again that researchers while “assuming common ancestry” come up with this new theory. Assuming is not evidence. I do not doubt that types of evolution occurred but to what extent and where it started is still open to any avenue in my book.

Science doesn't make "guesses" in the area of common ancestry. It's shown.

However, the difference between the "guesses" (aka Hypothesis) that science currently makes, and the "guess" that ID makes is that one is testable. The other is not.

True science must be testable and repeatable. Period. There's no wiggle room about it. There is no way to test for the presence of a designer, since one can not prove a negative.

But, you are correct in one part, the exact mechanism for the jump from molecules to life is open to any testable theory. We don't know. ID instead says,"We don't know, so God did it." That is what makes it junk science, as determined in the US court system in every case it was challenged.

[bking]

[quote name='Uber Geek' date='Jul 29 2009, 12:05 PM' post='276621']

Science doesn't make "guesses" in the area of common ancestry. It's shown.

I was referring to hypotheses made about a single common ancestor.

[Uber Geek]

Science doesn't make "guesses" in the area of common ancestry. It's shown.

I was referring to hypotheses made about a single common ancestor.

I know what you were saying. What I said is that is has been shown. Sure, we haven't nailed down the one final ancestor, but perhaps you should look at the tree of life:

http://itol.embl.de/

This is the evidence of a single ancestor. The branches keep getting narrower and narrower. This tool also shows the predictability of the current model. We can predict the existence of a common ancestor with it.

Of course, propaganda referring to ID as "scientific theory" will attempt to discredit current scientific thought, because it has no leg to stand on, scientifically speaking. ID would fix itself by stop calling itself science, and instead refer to itself as philosophy, bu this will never happen. "Why?" one might as? Because it would not work to redefine science and culture to conform with Christianity, the sole purpose of ID.

[Antepilani ab De...]

ID would fix itself by stop calling itself science, and instead refer to itself as philosophy, bu this will never happen. "Why?" one might as? Because it would not work to redefine science and culture to conform with Christianity, the sole purpose of ID.

Exactly. The Discovery Institute used ID to disguise Christian theology as science, in its agenda to circumvent the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment's prohibition of the state sponsorship of religion.

[bking]

Science doesn't make "guesses" in the area of common ancestry. It's shown.

I was referring to hypotheses made about a single common ancestor.

I know what you were saying. What I said is that is has been shown. Sure, we haven't nailed down the one final ancestor, but perhaps you should look at the tree of life:

http://itol.embl.de/

This is the evidence of a single ancestor. The branches keep getting narrower and narrower. This tool also shows the predictability of the current model. We can predict the existence of a common ancestor with it.

Of course, propaganda referring to ID as "scientific theory" will attempt to discredit current scientific thought, because it has no leg to stand on, scientifically speaking. ID would fix itself by stop calling itself science, and instead refer to itself as philosophy, bu this will never happen. "Why?" one might as? Because it would not work to redefine science and culture to conform with Christianity, the sole purpose of ID.

Cool link, thanks. I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part but for me with the more evidence gathered to help us predict the existence of a common ancestor I just end up having more questions. I think what steers me toward the idea of ID is that I do see design in the evidence for evolution. For me when I look at all the evidence it doesn't look random. I wonder why if all these mutations were random why everything works so well together in systems? I probably will never have the answers. I enjoyed speaking with you.

[Uber Geek]

Cool link, thanks. I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part but for me with the more evidence gathered to help us predict the existence of a common ancestor I just end up having more questions. I think what steers me toward the idea of ID is that I do see design in the evidence for evolution. For me when I look at all the evidence it doesn't look random. I wonder why if all these mutations were random why everything works so well together in systems? I probably will never have the answers. I enjoyed speaking with you.

We probably wont have the answers in your or mine lifetime. Such is the nature of knowledge.

In your quest for answers, here are a few topics you might want to look at:

1) Brownian motion
2) Random Walks
3) Game Theory
4) Closed Systems
5) Open Systems

I'll just leave those five. All of them rather large topics that help to explain why something that appears to be random, is in fact not.

As for systems working together in cadence? That's a feature of systems. All systems attempt to work towards equilibrium. In a closed system, it eventually means that it will get there, and in an open system, it will always try, but never (Probabilistically speaking) arrive.

[bking]

Cool link, thanks. I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part but for me with the more evidence gathered to help us predict the existence of a common ancestor I just end up having more questions. I think what steers me toward the idea of ID is that I do see design in the evidence for evolution. For me when I look at all the evidence it doesn't look random. I wonder why if all these mutations were random why everything works so well together in systems? I probably will never have the answers. I enjoyed speaking with you.

We probably wont have the answers in your or mine lifetime. Such is the nature of knowledge.

In your quest for answers, here are a few topics you might want to look at:

1) Brownian motion
2) Random Walks
3) Game Theory
4) Closed Systems
5) Open Systems

I'll just leave those five. All of them rather large topics that help to explain why something that appears to be random, is in fact not.

As for systems working together in cadence? That's a feature of systems. All systems attempt to work towards equilibrium. In a closed system, it eventually means that it will get there, and in an open system, it will always try, but never (Probabilistically speaking) arrive.

Thanks, I'll look into those. Hopefully they wont be over my head. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)