The New Intelligent Design <id> and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations

[MrIntelligentDesign]

"STUPID!" That is the normal reaction of many people and scientists when they read and hear the topic of Intelligent Design. I cannot blame them. Because of this necessity and curiosity, I discovered intelligence in science and really define and categorize "STUPID" to "non-STUPID" (actually a synonym of other words) and wrote science article for free, to support my claims. I cannot copy and paste the whole article for discussion, but I can give you link FREE and discuss here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Intelligent Design <id> and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations

How will you answer this scientific question in science or religion? “How can you differentiate a created X to an un-created X”? Will you answer, “The created X is complex or irreducibly complex and the un-created X is simple or reducibly complex?”. Or in Biology, a difference or dividing line between an intentionally made biological cell to non-intentional? Will you answer, “intentional is information-coded while the non-intentional is no-information code,”? Or in Cosmology, an intelligently designed Universe to non-intelligently designed Universe?

The New Intelligent Design and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations

All scientific explanations regarding origins, causes and effects, forensic-like studies, and the differences between two opposites or two extremes, as being used in all fields in science such as Biology, Astronomy, Cosmology, Psychology, etc., and all topics that require a complete scientific...

doi.org

 

[skepticalbip]

I would suggest that, instead of your arguing against a strawman definition of science and the scientific method, you first learn what science and the scientific method is then try to frame a rational argument with that in mind.

 

[Hermit]

The New Intelligent Design <id> and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations

LOL

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7] This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[15]

(Link)

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I would suggest that, instead of your arguing against a strawman definition of science and the scientific method, you first learn what science and the scientific method is then try to frame a rational argument with that in mind.

I understand the method, the question is, did you? My topic is knowing the two extremes: intelligence to non-intelligence... can you?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

The New Intelligent Design <id> and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations

LOL

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[15]

(Link)

Oh sorry, I had been contacting Meyer and Behe and Hugh Ross, and Ken Ham and Hovind etc to support me since I am not a member of the old ID that is being supported by the DI. Sorry, you must know the differences... You must know the scientific opponent that you are facing now, or be sorry later. If it happens that you directly contact them, tell them about me... It will help the whole scientific world.

 

[steve_bank]

One aspect of your OP appears to be the watchmaker argument in disguise. How to determine if something is made by humans or or if it is natural.

The next step would be to say if we can detect something that is man made then how do we determine if the universe is designed, or something like that leading to the conclusion that the universe must have been designed by an Intelligent Designer,. In other words god. Am I correct?

Like a standard well known opening in chess.

My response is observation of the universe says if someone designed it he, she. or it was not a very good designer. Floods, hurricanes, diseases, birth defects, killer asteroids.

Second, who designed the designer? From where did the designer come from?

In the 90s there were several court cases that ruled ID was religion not science and could not be forced into public science education. The term Intellegent Designer was created to be anle to argue Christian creationism without saying god explicitly and make craetionism sound like sceince.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

One aspect of your OP appears to be the watchmaker argument in disguise. How to determine if something is made by humans or or if it is natural.

The next step would be to say if we can detect something that is man made then how do we determine if the universe is designed, or something like that cation. The term Intellegent Designer was created to be anle to argue Christian creationism without saying god explicitly and make craetionism sound like sceince.

Do you want me to COPY and PASTE here the link??? Or just go there and read and come back here and ask for more???

 

[steve_bank]

One aspect of your OP appears to be the watchmaker argument in disguise. How to determine if something is made by humans or or if it is natural.

The next step would be to say if we can detect something that is man made then how do we determine if the universe is designed, or something like that cation. The term Intellegent Designer was created to be anle to argue Christian creationism without saying god explicitly and make craetionism sound like sceince.

Do you want me to COPY and PASTE here the link??? Or just go there and read and come back here and ask for more???

No thank you. Some of us have had many lengthy ID debates over the years. We know all the arguments. None of iy qualifies as science.

If a god creted the universe we have no way to prove it scientically. In the 90s the poe of the RCC said evolution may be part of god;s plan, bowing to the overwhelming accumulated evidence for evolution. Some protestant sects have gone that way.

Science does not answer all questions on evolution and may never will. We say we do not know instead of saying a god did it. If your belief in god was scientifically provable it would not be religious faih.

Religious faith is believing in something not provable in a material objective sense.

Scientifc cosmology is not provable. I view it as mathematical speculation, more philosophy. Some on the forum would disagree with me.

I see no evidence of a designed universe. I see the opposite. As an engineer the universe to me spears as a lousy design. Especially by an all powerful god who could make it any way he, she, or it desired.

If I was hiring a unverse designer and the Intelgent Designer of this unverse walked in I'd say no thanks, the quality of your work is substandard.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

One aspect of your OP appears to be the watchmaker argument in disguise. How to determine if something is made by humans or or if it is natural.

The next step would be to say if we can detect something that is man made then how do we determine if the universe is designed, or something like that cation. The term Intellegent Designer was created to be anle to argue Christian creationism without saying god explicitly and make craetionism sound like sceince.

Do you want me to COPY and PASTE here the link??? Or just go there and read and come back here and ask for more???

If I was hiring a unverse designer and the Intelgent Designer of this unverse walked in I'd say no thanks, the quality of your work is substandard.

If you do not know your opponent, please, stop posting. Stop wasting your time here. I do not care if you do not believe me. Go and post in another topic. But one thing is sure: Evolution is wrong.

 

[skepticalbip]

One aspect of your OP appears to be the watchmaker argument in disguise. How to determine if something is made by humans or or if it is natural.

The next step would be to say if we can detect something that is man made then how do we determine if the universe is designed, or something like that cation. The term Intellegent Designer was created to be anle to argue Christian creationism without saying god explicitly and make craetionism sound like sceince.

Do you want me to COPY and PASTE here the link??? Or just go there and read and come back here and ask for more???

If a god creted the universe we have no way to prove it scientically. In the 90s the poe of the RCC said evolution may be part of god;s plan, bowing to the overwhelming accumulated evidence for evolution. Some protestant sects have gone that way.

Indeed. Even the old stalwart ID advocates had to admit that the accumulated evidence for evolution was too strong to argue against. They, however, didn't give up completely. They just "created" a new definition by calling it 'micro evolution' and insisted that 'macro evolution' hadn't been proven.

I see no evidence of a designed universe. I see the opposite. As an engineer the universe to me spears as a lousy design. Especially by an all powerful god who could make it any way he, she, or it desired.

Not to mention how poorly humans were "designed". If life on Earth was designed then the 'designer' must have loved beetles and hated humans.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You must know the scientific opponent that you are facing now, or be sorry later. If it happens that you directly contact them, tell them about me... It will help the whole scientific world.

All i see is questions, so far.
How do YOU detect intelligence in science? What do you mean by "intelligence in science"?
How do you define and/or meadure intelligence?

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you do not know your opponent, please, stop posting.

Oh, well, that's humble. You, uh, you don't get to dictate participation even in 'your' threads.

Stop wasting your time here.

If you appear unable to address the basics, it's not him that's wasting time.

I do not care if you do not believe me. Go and post in another topic. But one thing is sure: Evolution is wrong.

Evolution is a fact.
Do you mean the Theory of Evolution? Attempts to explain what it is we see when we observe evolution happening?
There's a difference. If you don't know that, you will not profit from your time here.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Another poster who claims to love science and then tries to use that alleged love of science to disprove the value of science and peddle his favorite religious woo. There must be a line of these guys outside.

But welcome to the shooting gallery. I'm interested in how you found our little home and what you hope to accomplish while here.

 

[bilby]

But one thing is sure: Evolution is wrong.

Really? What is wrong with it?

Do you claim that offspring do not resemble their parents?

Do you claim that offspring don't differ from their siblings?

Do you claim that these differences don't even slightly alter their chances of successfully reproducing?

If you accept that offspring resemble their parents, but differ from their siblings in ways that at least slightly alter their chances of successfully reproducing, then you accept that evolution is right.

If you don't agree that the above is true, then you simply don't know what evolution is.

Because that's it. That's all of it. Anything else in evolutionary theory is just an obvious and unavoidable result of reiterating that cycle of reproduction with minor differences.

 

[Jarhyn]

So to be fair here, evolution is not good. It's actually quite bad, when you really get down to it, insofar as it follows a model of genetic solipsism when it is the only method a population has to self-modify across time.

It sucks to be a pure Darwinian, pure Darwinians make terrible neighbors, and is in fact one of the reasons we consider most insects to be so fucking awful, I would imagine.

I don't like Darwinian evolution.

I fucking hate it, and everything in my life is designed around finding a better way to self modify through time for everyone and everything.

But it is absolutely real, no matter how much I loath the evolutionary model that is "darwinism".

People make all kinds of excuses to throw tantrums about evolution, specifically Darwinian evolution, being a thing.

It's a hell of a thing to be, to be a thing lashed to the legacy of that. Talk about "original sin!"

But the fact is we can't make it not exist just because we don't like it.

I may not like testosterone very much, but it's still been squirted into my blood for the last 30 some odd years; it still happened. No amount of dancing under the moon or praying, or wailing at the wall will change that, and neither will any of those things change the mechanisms of DNA, mutation, and reproduction.

 

[bilby]

Scientific explanations are powerful and correct as a matter of course.

If you feel the need to tell people that you are providing Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations, that's a strong upfront indication that you're not providing anything of the sort. Explanations should stand on their own, without the need for a cheer-squad of adjectives.

I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who said "Being powerful is like being a lady. If you need to tell people that you are, you're not".

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

You must know the scientific opponent that you are facing now, or be sorry later. If it happens that you directly contact them, tell them about me... It will help the whole scientific world.

All i see is questions, so far.
How do YOU detect intelligence in science? What do you mean by "intelligence in science"?
How do you define and/or meadure intelligence?

Oh.... wow...actually, your questions are very good and very real and very important that Darwin and all supporters of Evolution should be asking that BEFORE they conclude EVOLUTION!!! WHY?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Because if our science knew about intelligence, and everything about it, then, we will know too about non-intelligence!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SUPERB!!!

SO WHAT????????????????????? OK. Let me copy and paste my answer to Jarhyn...

WHAT??? OK, let me summarize. The topic of intelligence is messed and being messed by Evolution, which means, the topic of non-intelligence too is being messed. How did they mess it? 70 definitions! x 2! If you messed two extremes, then, we cannot answer this question in science: Is biological cell that composed of python intelligently designed or not? If you cannot answer that, then surely, you cannot answer this: is the change in frequency allele intelligently designed or not? Or you cannot answer this (I added): is the universe intelligently designed of not? Then, you are dead in science! Somebody must discover the messed topic of intelligence FIRST... YOU SEE how genius I am! Never in the history of humans and science history appears a person like me... TAKE THE HINT...

And my OP and its link talked abut the discovery of intelligence, with thought experiment...

Science wins! Evolution lose!

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

But one thing is sure: Evolution is wrong.

Really? What is wrong with it?

Do you claim that offspring do not resemble their parents?

Do you claim that offspring don't differ from their siblings?

Do you claim that these differences don't even slightly alter their chances of successfully reproducing?

If you accept that offspring resemble their parents, but differ from their siblings in ways that at least slightly alter their chances of successfully reproducing, then you accept that evolution is right.

If you don't agree that the above is true, then you simply don't know what evolution is.

Because that's it. That's all of it. Anything else in evolutionary theory is just an obvious and unavoidable result of reiterating that cycle of reproduction with minor differences.

Let me open your eyes, Bilby, and others who are not fully educated with real science, and let this help you:

Evolution is change with time. Is the change intelligently designed or not? Why? And show with experiment Choose and let us discuss...

 

[excreationist]

But one thing is sure: Evolution is wrong.

In the past I was skeptical whether evolution could explain certain things:

Birds, Bees, Butterflies and Flowers

Guided evolution makes more sense to me than the naturalistic evolution of birds, bees, butterflies and flowers.... I recently learnt that caterpillars liquify in their cocoon.... Note that flowers (plants with sexual organs) seem to have coevolved with bees and butterflies... (then later some...

iidb.org

Chameleons and guided evolution?

I have a hunch an intelligent force exists see: thread: A God without compelling evidence? I believe that our world might not be very old and the history of the evolutionary tree was a virtual history that involved some interesting designs that seemed to evolve naturalistically. It is probably...

iidb.org

Selection pressures for long hair and beards in humans?

Maybe there is a good answer... but anyway let's say there was an ape-man with very short head hair.... then after a long time basically every single human had long hair (and long beards for the men). For all humans to have it then there must have been selection pressures to have hair that...

iidb.org

But in the end it seemed that evolution could be a plausible mechanism....

So do you have specific things that evolution doesn't make sense for?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Another poster who claims to love science and then tries to use that alleged love of science to disprove the value of science and peddle his favorite religious woo. There must be a line of these guys outside.

But welcome to the shooting gallery. I'm interested in how you found our little home and what you hope to accomplish while here.

But one thing is sure: Evolution is wrong.

In the past I was skeptical whether evolution could explain certain things:

Birds, Bees, Butterflies and Flowers

Guided evolution makes more sense to me than the naturalistic evolution of birds, bees, butterflies and flowers.... I recently learnt that caterpillars liquify in their cocoon.... Note that flowers (plants with sexual organs) seem to have coevolved with bees and butterflies... (then later some...

iidb.org

Chameleons and guided evolution?

I have a hunch an intelligent force exists see: thread: A God without compelling evidence? I believe that our world might not be very old and the history of the evolutionary tree was a virtual history that involved some interesting designs that seemed to evolve naturalistically. It is probably...

iidb.org

Selection pressures for long hair and beards in humans?

Maybe there is a good answer... but anyway let's say there was an ape-man with very short head hair.... then after a long time basically every single human had long hair (and long beards for the men). For all humans to have it then there must have been selection pressures to have hair that...

iidb.org

But in the end it seemed that evolution could be a plausible mechanism....

So do you have specific things that evolution doesn't make sense for?

Hi, evolution is simply a change with time (it is funny, change is automatically associated with time, obviously, right?), and that is probably true. BUT, does the change is intentional or not? I normally use intelligence, OK. I discovered intelligence. That is the specific thing that science should be answering before concluding anything in origin topics, like origin of species. So, if non-intentional, then, evolution. If intentional, then, my theory...interrelation. Which? Interrelation wins.