Intelligent Design

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I'll tell you why it is illogical.
It is illogical because there is no difference between - assuming it was designed by an intelligent being and assuming it was designed by my penis.
My penis can produce intelligent beings that can formulate and implement intelligent designs. So, I ask you, why is it illogical to assume that my penis, that is capable of achieving such amazing feats is not the designer of this universe?

Joking aside, that is the reason people resort to
. Because it is equally illogical to assume there was an intelligent designer behind everything - or to assume that it was all a result of a natural process.


We might know today, perhaps tomorrow, but not. right. now.

edit;
if you're going to ask for evidence for my penis. ready you inbox.

Yeah, we don't know the origin of the structures that in every way function like superior versions of designed structures. But we just can't suppose a designer, be that is just ignorance right? We MUST only consider options that are counter intuitive and natural, because we assume the answer can only be in those parameters right?

No, we just can't suppose a designer because there is no evidence that point towards it. Unlike many, I don't have any problem with accepting that we are in fact designed provided I am shown enough evidence to support the matter. 
Now, I'm going to be honest with you and say that I believe in ID to a certain extent, for my own reasons, but it doesn't mean that I won't call out on bullshit when I see it. The reasons you presented are simply not enough, find some more evidence and make a case.

[The Inquisition]

No what you are doing, or Michael Behe is doing, is making evidence fit his conclusion.

You have to show that there is a limit to genetic manipulation that requires supernatural intervention. Where is this exact demarcation line?

Behe tried to draw this line at chloroquine resistance in malaria and was proven wrong.

I don't know where this line is, and it unfair to demand it. There are too many parts that all require each other to enter the evolutionary pathway. It's not that I am molding these things to look like they were designed, it is very apparent when you look at how they all work.

If you declare that a supernatural agent is behind evolution, then you have to draw the line clearly to distinguish between designed and natural evolution. Otherwise you are making claims that are not falsifiable and that is not scientific.

This is where Behe failed, and this is where all ID proponents fail.

[AAA]

Yeah, we don't know the origin of the structures that in every way function like superior versions of designed structures. But we just can't suppose a designer, be that is just ignorance right? We MUST only consider options that are counter intuitive and natural, because we assume the answer can only be in those parameters right?

No, we just can't suppose a designer because there is no evidence that point towards it. Unlike many, I don't have any problem with accepting that we are in fact designed provided I am shown enough evidence to support the matter. 
Now, I'm going to be honest with you and say that I believe in ID to a certain extent, for my own reasons, but it doesn't mean that I won't call out on bullshit when I see it. The reasons you presented are simply not enough, find some more evidence and make a case.

Ok, well what evidence makes you believe ID to an extent?

[ohreally]

So what exactly are you measuring when you measure 'design'?  What are the methods to determine if something is designed vs not designed?

It's been said many times already, but it's the specified sequence of nucleotides and amino acids that are irregularly ordered and have a specific order that leads to a functional product. The intricate workings of the cells inner components is also something we look at. And the method to determine if it was designed is the method of historical sciences as outlined by Newton and comparing multiple competing hypothesis. We know that intelligence is capable of explaining these phenomena, but we have never observed these things coming from any other way.

It's been said by you it looks designed.  So what is the nucleotide sequence of something that is not designed?

Is there a text book you have perhaps that explains the theory of ID? I'm not interested in history or 300 year old philosophy. I want to learn about how ID works.

[LadyForCamus]

You know what, I keep telling people that there is tons of evidence that I am the greatest lover ever, but for some reason people just wont believe me.
Dicks the lot of em.

The evidence comes from the genetic code, RNA, proteins, and the way the three interact. All are useless without the other. It is statistically impossible for these to all arrange themselves independently of each other, at the same place, at the same time, in a way that allows them to interact with each other. You will all respond with "Oh, well you just have to wait for a naturalistic explanation before you can accept that intelligence played a role." yet we already know that intelligence is capable of producing these types of systems. So why is it illogical to say it was likely designed?

So then who designed the designer? Since by your own assertion these complex things simply cannot come about naturally, it follows that something even more complex must have designed God, yes?

[Whateverist]

-as I've said.  Fine.  If you want to call life designed thats fine.  Evolution is the "designer".  More pedantically, the environment is the "designer".  Done, right?

Yeah, life is essentially self-fitting into environments by way of natural selection.  But I suppose until some people are shown how any life can come from no life, they'll go right on ignoring the adequacy of evolution to account for complexity.

They just shouldn't expect anybody here to respect their reasons.  (Sell that shit somewhere else.)

[brewer]

So then who designed the designer?  Since by your own assertion these complex things simply cannot come about naturally, it follows that something even more complex must have designed God, yes?

Bold mine.

Product of evolution?

[Cyberman]

And we've only got the lifetime of the Universe up to now play with.

[LadyForCamus]

-as I've said.  Fine.  If you want to call life designed thats fine.  Evolution is the "designer".  More pedantically, the environment is the "designer".  Done, right?

Yeah, life is essentially self-fitting into environments by way of natural selection.  But I suppose until some people are shown how any life can come from no life, they'll go right on ignoring the adequacy of evolution to account for complexity.

They just shouldn't expect anybody here to respect their reasons.  (Sell that shit somewhere else.)

Well, I mean come ON! If scientific inquiry cannot reveal the exact mechanisms of abiogenesis in MY lifetime of 80 or so years (if I'm lucky), then CLEARLY it cannot be done! Therefore: design. That wouldn't be narcissistic of me to think at all, would it?! [emoji14]

[TheRocketSurgeon]

It's been said many times already, but it's the specified sequence of nucleotides and amino acids that are irregularly ordered and have a specific order that leads to a functional product. The intricate workings of the cells inner components is also something we look at. And the method to determine if it was designed is the method of historical sciences as outlined by Newton and comparing multiple competing hypothesis. We know that intelligence is capable of explaining these phenomena, but we have never observed these things coming from any other way.

It's been said by you it looks designed.  So what is the nucleotide sequence of something that is not designed?

Is there a text book you have perhaps that explains the theory of ID?  I'm not interested in history or 300 year old philosophy.  I want to learn about how ID works.

Bold emphasis my own. That is the only question that matters, in the above discussion. 

Dembski's concept effectively designates anything complex as "must be designed", and thus self-confirms (by definition) that life must fit into his arbitrary category of "complex at ___ level = design". Dembski offers no solid basis for why the line is at a given point, explains no way in which his idea might be falsified. 

Ohreally has struck the nail upon the head: the null hypothesis, by which the idea would be tested, would be "What is the nucleotide sequence of something (living) that is not designed?"

Dembski's ideas, as quoted by the ID proponents here, is an awkward attempt to give Paley's ideas a pseudo-mathematical smoke screen, to fool the layperson, which I would remind you is the stated mission of the Discovery Institute (and its fellow orgs) to which Dembski belongs.