Freeper Research on Framing the Intelligent Design Argument

Various | June 13, 2005 | Alamo-Girl

[TXnMA]

AG, all I can say is, "Wow! You certainly have put a lot of thought and effort into this subject! So much so, that I am going to have to violate my goal of "no paper", and print this out so that I can study (and appreciate) it better...

For my part, I have done a lot of thinking and study on why otherwise intelligent believers have backed themselves into the corner of insisting that creation occured within the span of six rotations of this planet -- and that it occurred 6,000 years (orbits of this planet about its sun) ago. And, why they have put themselves in the position of having to deny (or deliberately misinterpret) the evidence of their senses and the results of millions of scientists-hours of meticulous observation.

I belive I have a few answers. It will require considerable work to write them up. Do you feel the effort would be worthwhile?

For one hint, take a look at the works of Michelangelo -- and read the second of the ten commendments...) '-)

Don't you just despise a teaser? LOL!

[ValenB4]

"Science may care or not care but many scientists certainly care about philopsophy and let their philosophy influence their science."

That is true. That is why science monitors itself and corrects its errors. All of the scientists throughout the world are not in on some sort of plot to foist evolution upon the public. There is a reason for evolution being accepted. The scientist who can truly delegitimize evolution would be world famous and would be immortalized in the history books. Until that happens, I'm going with the theory.

[Ichneumon]

and that before too long we all will step off into a pitch-dark abyss of eternal nothingness . . believing that, what prevents one from going home and facing the business end of a 12 gauge shotgun?

The realization that if this is the only life you get, you shouldn't waste it, because you won't be getting another. Live it as best you can.

Note, however, that fanatical Muslims, who believe that they get another life after this one, are only too happy to strap on bombs and end this one, in mass numbers. I think your reasoning is exactly backwards.

I mean, what's the point?

The point is that life is precious.

[antiRepublicrat]

Most of the "gaps" they try to "fill" with creationism aren't even gaps at all -- it's just their own misunderstandings about it.

Newton had his own "god of the gaps," which were later explained scientifically. God of the gaps is nothing more than pessimism about the future of scientific discovery and an excuse for not researching further.

[Alamo-Girl]

I know you don't want to engage either betty boop or me in a discussion, Ichneumom.

On two separate threads you have demanded that neither she nor I address any posts to you. You threatened betty boop that if she pinged you again, you'd complain to the Admin Moderator. And yet, here you are, on my thread making a post to "all".

I cannot abide that a poster must suffer another posters' assertions while under an obligation not to respond.

So what is the official policy in this circumstance?

[TXnMA]

Ooops! I forgot:

AG, thank you for all the time and effort (and, I expect, prayer) you put into this!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

But you might want to check out this Discovery Institute link which claims that one exists. I'd appreciate your feedback on that claim!

[jcdc]

This might add some new ideas to the genetic determinist. If you destroy the central dogma of reductionism in biology you have a better scientific basis for ID.

from www.brucelipton.com

The primacy of DNA in influencing and regulating biological behavior and evolution is based upon an unfounded assumption. A seminal article by H. F. Nijhout (BioEssays >1990, 12 (9):441-446) describes how concepts concerning genetic "controls" and "programs" were originally conceived as metaphors to help define and direct avenues of research. Widespread repetition of this compelling hypothesis over fifty years has resulted in the "metaphor of the model" becoming the "truth of the mechanism," in spite of the absence of substantiative supporting evidence. Since the assumption emphasizes the genetic program as the "top rung" on the biological control ladder, genes have acquired the status of causal agents in eliciting biological expression and behavior (e.g., genes causing cancer, alcoholism, even criminality).

What happens if a cell experiences a stressful environment but does not have a gene program (behavior) to deal with the stress? It is now recognized that cells can "rewrite" existing gene programs in an effort to overcome the stressful condition. These DNA changes are mutations. Until recently, all mutations were thought to be "random," meaning that the outcome of the mutation could not be directed. It is now recognized that environmental stimuli can induce "adaptive" mutations that enable a cell to specifically alter its genes. Furthermore, such mutations may be mediated by an organism’s perception of its environment. For example, if an organism "perceives a stress that is actually not there, the misperception can actually change the genes to accommodate the "belief."

In conclusion: The structure of our bodies are defined by our proteins. Proteins represent physical complements of the environment. Consequently, our bodies are physical compliments of our environment. Integral Membrane Proteins (IMPs) perception units in the cell’s membrane convert the environment into awareness. Reception of environmental signals change protein conformations. The "movement" generated by protein shape changes is harnessed by the cell to do "work." Life (animation) results from protein movements which are translated as "behavior." Cells respond to perception by activating either growth or protection behavior programs. If the necessary behavior-providing proteins are not present in the cytoplasm, the IMP perception units can activate expression of appropriate genes in the cell’s nucleus.

[Alamo-Girl]

Metamethodical method

You got me with that one. I had never heard of it so I Googled and found but a few mentions. Do you have a source so I can explore it further?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your views, Wuli! Truly, this thread of resources is of no importance to one who is either not interested in the debate itself or who has not been dragged into it kicking and screaming.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your kudos and encouragements!!!

I belive I have a few answers. It will require considerable work to write them up. Do you feel the effort would be worthwhile?

Absolutely! I very much look forward to reading it!

Don't you just despise a teaser? LOL!

Actually, yes - I am drawn to mystery!

[Alamo-Girl]

Excellent contribution, jcdc! Thank you so very much! I'm pinging RightWhale, too, because he may have a few observations on Lipton.

[betty boop]

Wow!!! This is fantastic, Alamo-Girl! Thank you oh so very much for all your hard work on this project!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the kudos, dear friend and sister in Christ! But, truly, most of the material originated with your posts. So kudos to you!

[cogitator]

bump

[TheOtherOne]

The "designer" in the intelligent design hypothesis is not stipulated and thus I do not impose my theology on the hypothesis. I keep an open mind.

Thanks for the thread and hard work.

Is is possible to believe in ID and not believe in God? I don't see how a person who doesn't believe in God is supposed to accept this theory.

In Intelligent Design, who could the 'designer' be, if it is not God?

[Doctor Stochastic]

In naturalism (whether methodological or metaphysical) everything must be the effect of a prior physical cause (physical causality) and thus never more than pseudo-random.

The second part doesn't follow from the first. People actually doing science, do not agree with this limitation. According to currently accepted physical theory, many processes do occur randomly. Any non-random explanation cannot reproduce the experimental results.

[Dimensio]

There are those who KNOW and those who don't know.

Those who KNOW that there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for bumping by!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply and question!

In Intelligent Design, who could the 'designer' be, if it is not God?

The designer could be collective consciousness, aliens, etc. Crick (of double helix fame) is rather well known for his "directed panspermia" hypothesis - believing that life on earth was intentionally seeded by aliens somewhere in the cosmos. Cosmic ancestry (a new form of panspermia) believes that life not only was seeded from the cosmos - but the variations which followed were likewise seeded. In the CA hypothesis, life always existed (Gaia). There are many such variations of panspermia and collective consciousness which would qualify as "designer" to the intelligent design hypothesis.

Also, because the intelligent design doesn't specify the designer, it could be an emergent property of naturalistic origins - the current mainstream view of intelligence. In this case, emerging intelligence is one possible cause of its own variation.