Introducing The College Student’s Back to School Guide to Intelligent Design

Evolution News & Views ^ | September 25, 2009 | Casey Luskin

[donmeaker]

I don’t care about their conclusions. I care about their evidence.

Argument from authority is not science. Especially from people educated in one field, but pronouncing in another.

Evidence is science.

[donmeaker]

I have seen Marxist/Communist students who wanted to take the whole class, every class discussing their sophmoric approach to sophmoric problems that they think are of burning import. Removing them from the class, sometimes with help from security is the only solution, though I had much more patience when they approached me outside of class, and were not burning other people’s time.

ID questions are much the same. Take your theological problems down the hall.

[metmom]

Argument from authority is not science. Especially from people educated in one field, but pronouncing in another.

Sounds like a concept that evos need to learn. Most evos fall into that category, if they even have science degrees.

[Agamemnon]

So someone tell me, how would you do an experiment to test for intelligent design?

Sure.

Today's experiment is divided into two parts and is designed to answer the following question:

Is Intelligent Design required as a proximate cause for transmission of productive information?

PREMISE: Computers such as one uses for purposes which include making communicative postings to FreeRepublic, store information, process information, and may be used to transmit information.

Preliminary question to Students:

Is the premise as stated above a truthful statement? (Yes, or No). Please be prepared to defend your answer.

DEFINITIONS: all definitions provided per (ref.: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn ) except “substantially disassembled” which is contextually defined.

1. Intelligence: the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience

2. Intelligent: having the capacity for thought and reason especially to a high

degree; "is there intelligent life in the universe?"; "an intelligent question"

3. Design: plan: make or work out a plan for; devise

4. Proximate: situated nearest to point of attachment or origin

5. Cause: events that provide the generative force that is the origin of something

6. Transmission: the act of sending a message; causing a message to be transmitted

7. Productive: producing or capable of producing (especially abundantly)

8. Information: a message received and understood

9. Substantially disassembled: a state of being for a computer which at minimum requires the motherboard to be separated from other computer components

MATERIALS:

1. Two (2) working computers, both, hopefully, your own. One or both may already be disassembled or may never have been used or assembled, but in this case must not be assembled, to wit, must be substantially disassembled (see definition #9). If never assembled, all unassembled parts must be tested and certified as performing in satisfactory fashion and to specification.

2. Tools which may be used to disassemble your computers. If already disassembled, no disassembling tools are required. Continue to "PROCEDURE"

PROCEDURE, EXPERIMENT 1:

1. Completely and substantially disassemble one computer in its ambient environment. Record a description of the environment. If computer is already disassembled, skip step 1 and move on directly to step 2.

2. Place components of disassembled or unassembled computer in two positions (feel free to try others, but position chosen may not include the analyst’s act of formal re-assembly to starting position)

a. All disassembled or not yet assembled parts placed in proximity to each other.

b. No disassembled or not yet assembled parts placed in proximity to one another.

c. Observe and record the degree to which the computer’s materials reassemble or de novo assembly under these conditions occurs.

3. Repeat steps 2(a.) and 2(b.) in sunlight and out of sunlight. Observe and record the degree to which the computer’s materials reassemble or de novo assembly under these conditions occurs.

4. Repeat steps 2(a.) and 2(b.) in a chemically influenced environment of your choosing. While composition of the environment may or may not necessarily be important feel free to repeat the current step in a variety of chemical environments. For instance, feel free to alter temperature, the atmosphere, duration of light exposure, mechanical agitation, duration and intensity of assorted energy exposures (e.g., a plugged in power source with two bare wires placed into contact with any or all parts; x-ray, gamma-ray, radioactive emitting materials NB: USE PROPER DEGREE OF CAUTION WHEN STUDYING THESE CONDITIONS).

Observe and record the degree of computer reassembly under conditions tested. To degree that it assembles, test the computer’s capability of storing information, processing information, and transmitting productive information. Make a special note of which chemical compositions and/or energy exposure most favored the computer’s materials to re-assemble or de novo assembly and subsequent information processing.

CONCLUSIONS:

Report the findings of Experiment #1 with respect to the computer’s observed MATERIAL success (i.e., absent the influence of any process which may be classified as designed to achieve information transmission outside the native abilities of the individual components themselves), or lack thereof, to re-establish its ability to store, process, and transmit information.

PROCEDURE, EXPERIMENT #2:

1. Completely and substantially disassemble a second computer in its ambient environment.

a. Prior to accomplishing step 1, create an environmental workspace suitable for disassembly of the computer. Environmental workspace would optimally include such things as a clean, adequately lit workspace, and other necessary environmental attributes which promote an adequately isolated and well-controlled disassembly area. Record a complete description of the environment and workspace.

b. While accomplishing step 1, record the step by step sequence employed to disassemble the computer.

c. While accomplishing step 1, take an inventory of each individual part as it appears separated from another component part. Make certain that the inventory of parts is complete.

NB: Only Steps 1a and 1c apply to computers which are already disassembled. Computer manufacturer’s assembly instructions however legally obtained may be consulted.

2. While consulting the sequence recorded in Step 1b or with the help of consulting the computer manufacturer’s instructions, and the inventory of parts listing which appears in Step 1c, utilizing the analyst’s cognitive reasoning skills, their innate intelligence, and their sentient abilities to be able to follow directions accurately, design a step by step plan for assembling the components of the computer in such a fashion as will allow the computer to store, process and transmit productive information when the assembly process is completed.

3. Once assembled turn the power switch to the “on” position. Record whether or not the computer becomes powered and “boots up.” If it does not, identify a suitable source of power to connect to the computer which will allow for the “boot up” process to proceed.

4. Test the computer’s ability to store, process, and transmit productive information, by connecting to the internet and by signing on to FR web site and by responding to the following study questions:

Study questions part 1:

1 Must something that is designed be designed by something or someone that is intelligent?

2 Is design ever accomplished without intelligence?

3 Is design purposeful?

4 Does the designer determine the purpose of that which is designed? For instance, does the screw determine the purpose for which the screw serves, or does the one who designed the screw determine its purpose?

Study Questions part 2: On the basis of what you observed when viewing the individual components, answer the following:

1. Do the motherboard, and ancillary boards manifest any evidence of design?

2. If so, from what you already know, did they design themselves for the functions they have?

3. Do the screws that hold to boards and components in place manifest design?

4. Do the tools you used to disassemble or to assemble your computer manifest any evidence of design?

5. Is there any evidence of dependent complexity between/among boards, power sources, switches, diodes, capacitors, fans, cables whereby if one or more components were lacking, or present but lacking in operative ability, the ability of the computer to store, process, and transmit productive information would not be possible?

CONCLUSIONS:

Report the success or lack thereof of the computer in Experiment #2 to be able to store, process and transmit productive information.

DISCUSSION: Compare the outcome of Experiment #1 to Experiment #2 on the basis of the respective computers’ resultant abilities to store, process, and transmit productive information.

Be prepared to comment upon the rationale for the observations made in the context of whether Intelligent design is the proximate cause for the computer’s ability to store, process, and transmit productive information, or whether the material ability of the components themselves acted upon by external forces is sufficient for the computer to re-establish its former capability to store, process, and transmit productive information.

FOLLOW-ON STUDY

1. Obtain a copy of the latest textbook edition of Principles of Biochemistry (Lehninger), or Biochemistry (Stryer)

2. Read the text book cover to cover. Pay close attention to narratives discussing regulation of cellular processes which manifest demonstrated abilities of cellular constituents to store, to process, and to transmit information intra-cellularly and inter-cellularly.

3. Compare these processes to those processes modeled in the two foregoing experiments.

a. EXPERIMENT 1: MATERIALISTIC methodology employed and the resultant success or lack thereof of computer’s subsequent ability to store, process, and transmit productive information

b. EXPERIMENT 2: INTELLIGENT DESIGN methodology employed and the resultant success, or lack thereof,* of computer’s subsequent ability to store, process, and transmit productive information.

*NB: While “lack thereof” is stated here to maintain the parallelism, and since Experiment #2 is completed and one has subsequently posted answers to the study questions after completing Experiment#2, the demonstrated success of the Intelligent Design model experiment is axiomatic to the point of its being moot for all but the most stubborn of simpletons.

Sadly, readers and aspiring analysts will confirm that there are still a few Darwin Central retreads and “previously-banned-imbeciles-posting-under-a-new-name” stubborn simpletons that continue to post to FR. I won’t say they are all necessarily beyond hope of intellectual redemption of some sort eventually, but until then I must admit that they do make for some amusing play toys.

4. Noteworthy evolutionists, Richard Dawkins among them, familiar with their own textbooks on biochemistry if not the actual standard texts to which I refer above have already as much as admitted that “Intelligent Design” is the preferred model to explain the complexities, the regulatory elegance, and the operational inter-relationships which are routinely and readily observed in nature and as such are capable of scientific study:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ... We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 1, 43.

Dawkins being busted by his own admissions on Ben Stein’s film, “Expelled,” in a way reminds me of the recent exposures of ACORN by James O'Keefe, Hannah Giles, and Breitbart.com.

Dawkins’ admisson

So, what do you say there, donmeaker.

Shall we step right up and take the materialist’s challenge and get your computer ready for Experiment #1?

Or are Dawkins’ own words sufficient enough at this point to inform you?

[stormer]

“My question was merely...”

And I’m asking for your proof.

[donmeaker]

I do not think that science is about truth or accuracy. It is about correcting error, by using evidence.

There is a vast amount of uncertainty out there. Reducing it is a interesting part of science. Any notion not capable of being tested is not science. We make a lot of decisions by voting on various questions (I live in CA and we have ballot propositions every few months.) but voting is not included in the scientific method. If it is a good experiment, you and I do the same experiment, and we get the same result.

[metmom]

“Dawkins’ admisson”

ROTFLOL!!!!!!

[stormer]

Wow - what a lot of typing. In the context of the argument, intelligent design was supposed to be demonstrated within a naturally occurring and self-replicating biological system. Oops. You fail. Grade: F.

[donmeaker]

I don’t see how an experiment on a computer has reference to biology.

You see, I don’t deny that intelligent design can create some things, I just deny that it is necessary for all things. You seem to hammer away at your computer with little sign of intelligence, but I do admire your persistance. Hope you get out of your mom’s basement someday.

Tired now. Just spend a day at the Page Museum at La Brea CA, looking at fossils that don’t exist, deposited in a time frame before creation in 6000BCE. With each bucket of crude dipped from that pit we get a window into a past that have litte to do with the Genesis story, and that Evidence does not tell me TRUTH, but gives me a handle on some errors.

[metmom]

Proof of what?

You’re saying that Einstein didn’t believe in a personal God.

I never said he did.

Your point is?

[metmom]

You see, I don’t deny that intelligent design can create some things, I just deny that it is necessary for all things.

On what basis?

What things do you know to exist that have been determined beyond the shadow of a doubt to not be the result of design?

The precedent here, established every time we see order and complexity, is that when we know the source, it is intelligence and design at some level.

Give us examples of self-assembling or self-existing objects.

[stormer]

You said, “So, Newton and Einstein were wrong when they concluded that the universe must have had a designer based on their observations?”

The implication of this question is that Newton and Einstein concluded that the universe must have had a designer and have made statements to that effect. I will submit to you that Newton probably did; I requested information from you in support of your statement in regards to Einstein. My point is you haven't, nor can you.

[donmeaker]

hope this helps.

[donmeaker]

Any plant seed is a self assembling object.

You have planted grass, no?

[count-your-change]

I like your experiment but I’m less optimistic about their abilities to understand such deep and complicated instructions, so I went with the paper bag in the hopes that was not overly difficult but it seems it was.

[count-your-change]

You asked for an experiment (#5) and got it. But I guess it was too complicated for you.

[metmom]

Looking for links to answer that question have provided some interesting articles.

This physicist tries to postulate a designer very intelligent, but of course, not God.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm

There’s this....
http://www.mtoomey.com/EinsteinViewOfGod.html

But this is what you’re looking for...
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/universe.html

“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation ... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”

Albert Einstein

[metmom]

And the seed came from where?

[stormer]

When Einstein writes about “an intelligence of such superiority”, he isn't talking about the concept of god as you understand; he is discussing human potential and limitations. His view is that because of our capacity for understanding and the very short time we as individuals have to understand all that there is, we will always fall short. Collectively we may make strides, but as individuals we are limited.

“My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance — but for us, not for God.”

The “infinitely superior spirit” he admires and strives to affirm isn't God, it is the collective spirit of mankind.

Albert Einstein was a very smart man, not only for his scientific prowess, but for his commitment to humanism.

[donmeaker]

http://noblesseoblige.org/wordpress/

Grass seed comes from the hardware store.

Perhaps the above link will offer you a bit more patience than I can muster just now.