'Intelligent design' supporters gather (700 Scientists agree ID is "step beyond Darwin")

Seattle PI ^ | 24 Oct 2005 | ONDREJ HEJMA (AP)

[Prime Choice]

Why'd they pick on Prague?

Prague sounds more prestigious than Podunk.

[AndyTheBear]

"The fact that we cannot yet explain the origin of life on Earth does not mean that there is (a) God who created it," Paces was quoted as telling the Czech news agency CTK.

The Darwinian evolution of life is an explanation, albeit not a complete one. So the fellow has a partial point...but its a red hearing. The fact that no one can explain what the universe is doing here is more relevant. The idea that it simply always was here seems to have been shot down by thermodynamics (increasing entropy, eventual heat death) and the big bang theory.

[furball4paws]

They could have found free lodging in Podunk.

[furball4paws]

Is "red" the Czech version of "pretrial" :-)

[Prime Choice]

They could have found free lodging in Podunk.

Yeah...but would you want free lodging in Podunk?

[furball4paws]

Sure then I could have a spaghetti dinner at the Wednesday evening prayer vigil with like Minded (?) people (?)

[Prime Choice]

Sure then I could have a spaghetti dinner at the Wednesday evening prayer vigil with like Minded (?) people (?)

I always thought it was lasagna. But you do have a point.   ;o)

[Gondring]

You are confusing elements of the system with the system as a whole. Besides, I just heard ID defended today (Teaching of Intelligent Design in Public Schools, by AEI on C-SPAN) by raising the idea that flagellum degenerated into a secreter rather than the other way around. Which way is this to be argued?

[Sun]

I don't know how many times I heard the "Steve" argument. Is that all they got?

[jennyp]

The biblical creationist starts with the Genesis account. The Intelligent Design scientist starts with an observation from nature.

The biblical creationist starts out assuming that the Genesis account is literally true.

The Intelligent Design scientist starts out assuming that the Genesis account is basically correct, albeit way too specific in its details to pass the Lemon Test.

[ThirstyMan]

What does he do with his observation?
Well I suppose he forms a better, more accurate understanding of the world. That's always helpful.
When the evidence points in a certain direction, then the honest scientist must follow.

All attempts to create an origin of life experiment start with an intelligent carefully controlled environment............and have failed.

That's the real model for creating life that I see.

[ThirstyMan]

furball: What does an Intelligent Design scientist do with his observation?
js1138: Since his observation is a conclusion, he uses it to prove his premise.

His observation is not just a conclusion it is a very possible explanation, albeit the implications of such are what drive materialists crazy.

Let me ask you:
Spontaneous generation or self formation from nothing without the aid of any intelligence, what kind of scientific observation is that?

[ThirstyMan]

TM: there is a big difference between a biblical creationist and a scientist who understands Intelligent Design.
SM: A scientist who understands intelligent design knows it's a charlatan pseudo science that dishonest biblical creationist use to try to sneak religion into schools.

You've diverted our discussion to your pet peeve.

[ThirstyMan]

TM: Show me one example of an intelligent being that isn't born from another intelligent being.
Chris: Is that your answer to my request for you to post a link to the "evidence" you allude to below? Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed.

Chris: If you want an example of a being born from a being less intelligent than they are, it happens at least 1/2 the time on average, for some definition of "intelligent". Or is there actually some meaningful pont you are trying to make?

Well yes, that is an example of evolution, i.e., change over time. What I wanted was an example of an inorganic forming into an organic. The distinction is not irrelevant unless you've preconceived that such is religious talk.

[ThirstyMan]

TM: The Intelligent Design scientist starts with an observation from nature.
Shuckmaster: Wrong. There's no such thing as an intelligent design scientist. ID is a completely bogus pseudo science designed to sell books to dishonest radical fundamentalists who think they are sneaky enough to get superstition and myth taught in science class without real scientists ever noticing the difference.

Sounds like a huge helping of ad hominem to me.
So you ask:
How can you debate a person who does not exist on a subject that isn't real?

I totally agree with you! It can't be done!

[ThirstyMan]

Wow! I went to bed too early last night, that's for sure!

OK, but I'm up early!

TM: "Show me one example of an intelligent being that isn't born from another intelligent being.
b_sharp: That's an interesting question.
If I were a creationist I would say 'God' fits that bill.
Since I'm not a creationist, I would have to agree with you that God was created by man.

The problem as posed? I would agree with you.
The observation that is being challenged though is the something from nothing premise of material science.

ID observes that nature yields no evidence of intelligence arriving from non intelligence.

[ThirstyMan]

jennyp: The biblical creationist starts out assuming that the Genesis account is literally true.
jennyp: The Intelligent Design scientist starts out assuming that the Genesis account is basically correct, albeit way too specific in its details to pass the Lemon Test.

To anser your question on the same plane:
The ability of science to explain any and everything is what a materialist believes. That has no ability to be proven from science either. It is a pact among equals to say it is so, not science.

From where I sit, the honest observation from nature can only lead one to one conclusion: that all intelligence comes from intelligence, inorganic never births organic, never has never will.

The speculation that it happened once upon a time was called spontaneous generation and mocked. Now it is believed as a scientific explanation? I personally don't think so.

Every experiment to prove spontaneous generation is initiated by a scientist yielding the very model of intelligent design.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

D,
It was sarcasm - a reflection of the usual postings
on FR critical of ID. I have no link :-)

best,
ampu

[aMorePerfectUnion]

LK,
If you add a sarcasm tag, it dilutes the tension
of a humorous post. :-)
ampu

[js1138]

Except that all your facts are wrong, you write well.