The Science Community's Myopia over Intelligent Design

(William A. Dembski is an associate research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at B | William Dembski

[USConstitutionBuff]

How about this definition.

Human: Any living organism that differs by at least 1% from the genome of a chimpanzee, but not by more than 2%.

That would be us, and only us. The gorilla and all other apes have a greater than 2% difference in DNA from a chimp.

Do you qualify?

[Coyoteman]

I'll listen to the evos when they can provide a definition of human.

Pertinent discussion from another thread.

[highball]

The bacterial flagellum has already been dealt with on another thread.

Welcome to the evolutionists.

[mlc9852]

And still no answer.

[mlc9852]

How is asking for the definition of human bogus? Unless you just don't have an answer, then you consider it bogus. I understand scientists often disagree about a lot of things but something as basic as the definition of human should be something they can agree on.

[mlc9852]

Why didn't you just say that? Humans breed, thereby making them human.

[IndyMac]

I may very well misunderstand it, but I believe that ID theory is an attempt to quantify the information content of biological systems. It is based upon the premise that a complex and highly specific system, regardless or origin, that performs a given specific function cannot arise through unguided evolutionary processes. If it can, then the Darwinists need to step up to the plate and at least propose such a mechanism. They have not yet done that.

The designer's name is totally irrelevant. Is this really so hard understand?

[USConstitutionBuff]

Of course my definition wasn't the currently acceptable scientific definition, but it is true of every living human that we are around 1% different in genome than a chimp, but not more than 2% like a gorilla.

How about......23 haploid chromosome number? Or, a being able to successfully reproduce with another human? Or, a bipedal tool using member of the ape clade?

Those with limited imagination try to hold science to the same standards of absolute certainty as faith, and get their noses out of joint when there isn't a universally accepted dogma issued in a fatwa or bull on the subject, forever putting it beyond debate upon pains of heresy. They then point to reasonable disagreements between scientists and extrapolate that to unreasonable means and insist that scientists are all wrong about everything if they cannot agree absolutely about anything.

Just having fun with definitions of what it is to be human is all. The less than 1% not greater than 2% has the advantage that it can be objectively tested with absolute certainty.

[Coyoteman]

The designer's name is totally irrelevant.

Irrelevant or unknown? I would like to hear opinions on this.

[pipecorp]

what's the evolutionary explanation of homosexuality?

[AFPhys]

(Scientific Community):(ID) :: (Catholic Church):(Copernicus)

[Rudder]

...a given specific function cannot arise through unguided evolutionary processes. If it can, then the Darwinists need to step up to the plate and at least propose such a mechanism. They have not yet done that.

Not true. It has been elucidated many, many times.

ID rests on two principles: irreducible complexity amd purposeful arrangement of parts--both of which are sophistry. How does one test for irreducible complexity? According to Behe, one sees the "puposeful arrangements of parts." And what is the operational definition of "purposeful arrangement of parts?"

This is not science nor can it ever be with such "slop" in the foundation of basic terms--it is, as I have said, pure, unadulterated sophistry.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

what's the evolutionary explanation of homosexuality?

Magnetism. Magnetic colons and pelvic bones. :-)

[ml1954]

If the IDer is not 'God' (supernatural), then whatever mechanism he/she/it uses to do what the IDers say Darwinian mechanisms cannot do must have a natural explanation.

This must be so because a non-supernatural IDer cannot, by definition, use supernatural mechanisms.

Since it's obvious ID doesn't even attempt to propose some natural non-Darwinian mechanism, ID proponents are dishonest when they claim they take no stand on who the Intelligent Designer is.

[tortoise]

Michael Behe has stated under oath that ID cannot tell us the mechanism of ID - just that it was 'intelligent' - and it cannot tell us the identity of the designer.

And mathematics tells us that there are an infinite number of possible causal pathways for every possible structure and pattern, the vast majority of which are not 'intelligent' by the weak definition used here.

I'm still waiting for a rigorous definition of 'intelligence' from the ID proponents. A hypothesis built upon handwaving is still handwaving.

[tortoise]

I'll listen to the evos when they can provide a definition of human.

'Human' is a probability distribution -- it has no definition.

I'll listen to the IDers when they can provide a rigorous definition of 'intelligence'.

[js1138]

I'd like to know so I can kick his butt.