Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?

The Pixie

Well-known member

Reality: ID Is About Religion​

If only you were honest about your 'reality'... please just be open to an honest discussion...
It is true that IDists, the Discovery Institute in particular, sponsored and are promoting a conference on "Science and Faith". From their website:

Does our universe point to God? Do molecules show evidence of foresight? Were humans produced through an unguided evolutionary process or by intelligent design? Explore these questions and more at the third annual Dallas Conference on Science & Faith, sponsored by Discovery Institute on March 13, 2021.

That is reality, Martin. That is what I am being honest about.

The fact you you want to deny that suggests that it is you who is out of touch with reality.

so far you have only tried to twist and spin out of and away from real ID. you keep getting confused Pix .... it is now looking that you do so out of ignorance of what ID is (or it could be purposeful but I doubt you have thought that far ahead)....
By "real ID" you presumably mean the web of deceit that you fell for, hook, line and sinker.

The reality is that ID is closely connected to Christian creationism, as the above quote proves. Your continued denial of reality only goes to illustrate how creationists handle evidence - if it disagrees with their opinions they just pretend it does not exist.

So, yes some creationists actually are ID-ists.... ID does not label the designer as a God... only that there is intelligence behind design as scientifically shown, in every case so far (and what the science behind SETI does)
Read that bit on the Discovery Institute website again, Martin.

Does our universe point to God? Do molecules show evidence of foresight? Were humans produced through an unguided evolutionary process or by intelligent design? Explore these questions and more at the third annual Dallas Conference on Science & Faith, sponsored by Discovery Institute on March 13, 2021.

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God? Very clearly you do:

  • Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
    John 11:25-26

Of course you do.


A Challenge For Martin​

To ensure we get this straight, the challenge I gave Martin was in post #2382:

I earlier said:
A Challenge For Martin
- whether he actually does so is likely distilled from reading the book, instead of trying to mischaracterize and quote-limit just a small excerpt.
So quote from the book and support your position.
To be clear then, The challenge is for Martin to support his false accusation that I quote-mined Dembski's new book.

Shall we see whether Martin rises to the challenge? Spoiler alert: No he does not.

Sadly the Pix gets confused once again.... The pix challenged me to quote the book that she (or he) actually tried their best to bash w/o even reading it herself....
No, that was not the challenge. The challenge was for Martin to support his false accusation of quote-mining.

I do not claim to have read the entire book, but I am pretty sure Martin has likewise not read it. I have at least read the start of it, and that was enough to show that Dembski assumes Christianity is true, and to provide eviodence of that.

I called them out on it and said that one can't bash a book they did not even read but the Pix just runs away and ignores that inconsitency....one of many the Pix falls into.
It is laughable that Martin says I ran away, when I respond to ALL his nonsense addressed to me, and some besides, within two days.

On the other hand, in post #2379, he said "I'll address your other earlier redundant response come Monday when I get back from my time travels. (hitting the in-laws where nothing has changed in 34 year...except the roof, that is new)." and that has still not happened. When it comes to running away, it is Martin doing the running, not me.

the Challenge was met and it choked the Pix...
Martin has not met the challenge - the fact that he is now pretending it is something else pretty much proves that. He knows he cannot support his false accusation of quote-mining, so he pretends the challenge was something else.

As far as I can see he has not even managed to do the challenge he is pretending I set him - "The pix challenged me to quote the book". Has Martin quoted the book at all?

so much so that the Pixie can't even admit that they never read a book they are trying to challenge... Too funny...and too typical
But I do admit I have not read it all. Can you admit to that too Martin?

Atheists are too predictable ... lacking logic and reason they just try their best to accuse and spin...and when caught (like the Pix here) they try to
misinform readers ....
The irony, of course, is that this is exactly what Martin has done here.

The challenge for Martin was for him to support he false accusation of quote-mining. And he has just been caught trying to misinform readers that the challenge was something else - "The pix challenged me to quote the book".




ID's Latest - A Book By An Expert In Medieval German

"From podcast info: As he studied the work of Darwin’s defenders, he found himself encountering tactics eerily similar to the methods of political brainwashing he had studied as a scholar. Thomas felt impelled to write a book as a sort of warning call to humanity: “Beware! You have been fooled!”


Just more for you to dodge..... I love it when you engage at the level you do... it makes things so easy
Intelligent Design is so detached from science that they cite an expert in Medieval German as an authority! This is a guy who is not even qualified to sign the list of people who "Dissent from Darwinism", and that includes dentists and engineers. This is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Compare to evolution, which has hundreds of thousands of supports who are actual scientists with actual qualifications in biology...
 

Martin23233

Active member

Reality: ID Is About Religion​


It is true that IDists, the Discovery Institute in particular, sponsored and are promoting a conference on "Science and Faith". From their website:

The truth that The Pixie ( our very special self-proclaimed PhD) won't tell anyone nor admit to is that ID is not about religion as she (or he) claims... the Pix can only muster a handful of sites that do support ID and indeed are very religious. but what the Pix lacks in understanding I'll try to help her (or him) out with - ID is not about creationism..... ID does not make the claims about the designer...just that there is intelligence behind actual design.(very similar to SETI and the science used there - another sore point that the Pix can't grasp and won't admit to):

"

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM?​

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

"
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

See the New World Encyclopedia entry on intelligent design."
 

Martin23233

Active member
So it is clear that The Pixie is just off the rails (or as others have say not all the paws in the litter box) - when she (or he) tries to mischaracterize ID as a purely religious movement when it is openly and clearly not. There certainly are many that to believe that God / a god created all things and that the design detected is of godly intelligence. But the fact remains that just like the purely scientific study of SETI to detect intelligence ID uses the same scientific methods.
Don't let those with little understanding (like the Pix) to try to mischaracterize facts and truth.... just keep calling them out and throwing it in their faces so more and more people see it. It gets old but it certainly helps other who follow the facts and the data and can see the truth.
Plus it is fun to expose em....watching them squirm and flounder with comments like (well SETI uses science but it is not science) - no kidding you just can't make stuff up like that. our resident 'self-proclaimed' PhD has a growing list of blunders like that.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

ID Is About Religion​

The truth that The Pixie ( our very special self-proclaimed PhD) won't tell anyone nor admit to is that ID is not about religion as she (or he) claims...
That would be because ID is about religion.

the Pix can only muster a handful of sites that do support ID and indeed are very religious.
And Martin can only muster a single site that supports ID and is not religious! But see later...

but what the Pix lacks in understanding I'll try to help her (or him) out with - ID is not about creationism..... ID does not make the claims about the designer...just that there is intelligence behind actual design.
We all agree "ID does not make the claims about the designer". That is because it is not real science. That is because it is hiding the simple fact that IDists think the designer is the Abrahamic God.

In real science, when design is detected, scientists do all they can to identify the designer. Archaeologists and forensic scientists do this all the time. They are real science. They have no agenda that they have to keep secret.

Very different to ID.


The Two Faces Of The Discovery Institute​

What Martin has managed to do is find a web site that is rather more careful about maintaining the disguise than the Discovery Institute's web site. Sorry, I mean Discovery Institute's other web site.

See, it turns out that the DI have (at least) two web sites, the one Martin presents and this one:


The former they are careful to maintain the disguise, and there is no mention of Jesus or Christ or faith on the web site. This is the face that they present when they want to look all sciency.

This is the web site Martin goes to when he want ID to look all sciency.

Then there is the other, where we see behind the disguise, and we see them promoting events like this:
  • Design & Designer: The Convergence of Science & Theology: 2022 Westminster Conference on Science & Faith
  • Dallas Conference on Science & Faith: How has Christianity contributed to the rise of modern science? What do the latest scientific discoveries tell us about the existence of God?
And of course Meyer's book, Return of the God Hypothesis. This other face is the one they present to the faithful when they want their fellow Christians to sign up for stuff, to spend money.

Two web sites, by the same organisation. They are the same people writing the articles for both sites - in many cases the same articles too. Be in no doubt this is one ID organisation with two faces.

When I say ID is creationism in disguise, this is exactly what I am talking about.


A Question Martin Cannot Answer​


Last time, I posed this question:

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?

I see Martin has dodged it. Okay, so we could put that down to force of habit, but I think the real reason he dodged the question in this case is that he believes the designer is the Christian God. Martin is an IDist who - like all the rest of them - believes God created all the species on this plant. And like all IDists, he wants to maintain the pretence that the designer could be anyone.

Do you think it could be the Hindu gods, Martin? No, of course not. Could life on the planet have been seeded by aliens? No way!

He cannot answer this question because to do so would be to let the disguise slip.


That SETI Obsession​

(very similar to SETI and the science used there - another sore point that the Pix can't grasp and won't admit to):
He cannot let it go. At least he is not pretending I have not supported my position this time around. That makes a refreshing change.


ID Is About Religion (Again)​

So it is clear that The Pixie is just off the rails (or as others have say not all the paws in the litter box) - when she (or he) tries to mischaracterize ID as a purely religious movement when it is openly and clearly not.
And yet that is what the evidence points to.

Go read about the Kitzmiller court case. A court of law determined that ID is about religion.

I get that you want to cling to your beliefs so desperately, but really the facts are all against you here.

There certainly are many that to believe that God / a god created all things and that the design detected is of godly intelligence. But the fact remains that just like the purely scientific study of SETI to detect intelligence ID uses the same scientific methods.
The simple fact that ID stops at declaring "design" and deliberately makes no attempt to find out anything about the designer tells us it is pseudo-science.

Archaelogy does not do that. Forensic science does not do that. They are real science.

And by the way, if SETI every did detect something, SETI would not do that.


What Facts Does Martin Have?​

Don't let those with little understanding (like the Pix) to try to mischaracterize facts and truth.... just keep calling them out and throwing it in their faces so more and more people see it. It gets old but it certainly helps other who follow the facts and the data and can see the truth.
I am curious what "facts" you think you have presented. Do you mean the encyclopaedia by the Moonies? Do you mean the façade the DI present to look all sciency?

our resident 'self-proclaimed' PhD has a growing list of blunders like that.
But you cannot actually present that list, can you?

Are you aware how deluded you look when you say stuff like this? You claim to have presented all these facts, but cannot actually think of one off hand. You have this supposed list of blunders, but not really.

It is sad, really.


What Scientific Methods Does ID Use?​

... But the fact remains that just like the purely scientific study of SETI to detect intelligence ID uses the same scientific methods.
What scientific methods, Martin?

Do you have any clue at all? I have asked you this a few times previously, and you dodged the question every time. I feel pretty safe at this point in saying that you really have no idea what those scientific methods are.

You have been told by your pastor or priest os whatever that they use the same scientific methods as SETI, and you just believe that on faith.

Because ID is just about religion.
 

docphin5

Well-known member

ID Is About Religion​

That would be because ID is about religion.

Did you ever see the movie Prometheus? I just saw it again recently and realized it is essentially a movie based on the premise of ID. An alien race of humanoids visits a lifeless earth and bioengineers the species on the planet. The lead actors call them “engineers” and “creators”. When criticized for doubting Darwin they respond that they have faith in their creators. It ends up that the “creators” were on their way to destroy humans on earth before one of their biological agents got loose and wiped them out first. It has several well known actors in it. Good sci-fi movie, but definitely a promo for ID minus the part they planned to destroy us, although…(key eerie music).
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Did you ever see the movie Prometheus? I just saw it again recently and realized it is essentially a movie based on the premise of ID. An alien race of humanoids visits a lifeless earth and bioengineers the species on the planet. The lead actors call them “engineers” and “creators”. When criticized for doubting Darwin they respond that they have faith in their creators. It ends up that the “creators” were on their way to destroy humans on earth before one of their biological agents got loose and wiped them out first. It has several well known actors in it. Good sci-fi movie, but definitely a promo for ID minus the part they planned to destroy us, although…(key eerie music).
Yes, there was a weird religious/creationist theme in Prometheus, but I wouldn't call it a good sci-fi movie. Every character made moronic decisions, with the map-maker getting lost, the 'scientists' taking their helmets off for no reason and then poking at alien creatures, to the main character running in a straight line while a giant doughnut-shaped ship rolled after her. What a terrible script. It might as well have been written by a bunch of cdesign proponentsists.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Yes, there was a weird religious/creationist theme in Prometheus, but I wouldn't call it a good sci-fi movie. Every character made moronic decisions, with the map-maker getting lost, the 'scientists' taking their helmets off for no reason and then poking at alien creatures, to the main character running in a straight line while a giant doughnut-shaped ship rolled after her. What a terrible script.
That is true. I was like, “Don’t take your helmets off, you morons!” LOL. I guess I just have a weakness for sci-fi movies. Cannot wait for Dune’s release, —two more days!
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
That is true. I was like, “Don’t take your helmets off, you morons!” LOL. I guess I just have a weakness for sci-fi movies. Cannot wait for Dune’s release, —two more days!
I love sci-fi films too. I've been waiting a year for Dune, and read the books twice. But the release here in NZ has been delayed (again!) to December. Everything I've heard about it has been very positive, except that it doesn't have much of an ending - meaning it will need to get its sequel(s) to really deliver.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Did you ever see the movie Prometheus? I just saw it again recently and realized it is essentially a movie based on the premise of ID. ...
I have seen it, a couple if years ago now. Yes, it did strike me as ID - and more specifically for Martin, front-loaded ID, which he claims to subscribe to, despite not knowing what it is.

It was quite fun, but as has been pointed out, had varies plot issues. I like sci-fi, but the older I get, the more I take issue with that BS. Do not get me started on Antman...
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I have seen it, a couple if years ago now. Yes, it did strike me as ID - and more specifically for Martin, front-loaded ID, which he claims to subscribe to, despite not knowing what it is.

It was quite fun, but as has been pointed out, had varies plot issues. I like sci-fi, but the older I get, the more I take issue with that BS. Do not get me started on Antman...
The director of Dune also directed “Arrival” which I really liked. In Arrival the plot seems more plausible and easier to believe than some sci-fi. So I am hoping Dune can do the same.
 
Last edited:

Martin23233

Active member

ID Is About Religion​


That would be because ID is about religion.
Our resident (self-proclaimed Phd) is at it again - so confused...and so delusional.
When one professes that they are a PhD and then makes so so many blunders and illogical statements it becomes more clear what their intent likely is. It was so funny to hear how The Pixie claims that SETI uses science but it is not science.... and of course who can forget the Pixie walking back their claim of what a textbook example of a species is... by saying well errr uh...um... well it's fuzzy actually when defining species.
I wonder how long it took The Pix to google 'species'

What Does the Pixie have to fear about admitting that SETI is a factual scientific endeavor?
Well for one thing the Pix can't allow herself (or himself) to allow ID the same allowance...even though it already holds it. (we don't really need to care much about an opinion by the PIX that can't be supported anyway)....just fun to point that out often as possible.

So What Science does ID use? I guess the Pix is lacking the ability to read any links offered:

"Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?​

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
The scientific methods include the same science SETI uses ...sampling techniques... mathematical probabilities... ... as well as information theory and observations about intelligent action


One has to wonder if The Pixie has any clue at all about science.... or the scientific method. It appears not but it's best to let the Pixie keep up the ignorance on it.


IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN Just Religion?​

Well the Pixie wants to believe such a claim but the Pixie can't really defend it when put to the test. From ID sites:

"

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM?​

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.


LOL one does not really have to wonder at all - when a darwinist is cornered and can't refute facts... well they mislead people -that is all they have .. honestly admitting truth is not in their self-preservation interest....
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
I see Martin has finally found the headings facility on the forum. It is interesting that he tries so hard to emulate my posting style.

Living In A Fantasy World​

Our resident (self-proclaimed Phd) is at it again - so confused...and so delusional.
When one professes that they are a PhD and then makes so so many blunders and illogical statements it becomes more clear what their intent likely is.
And yet Martin cannot cite any such "blunders and illogical statements".


That SETI Obsession (Part 1)​

It was so funny to hear how The Pixie claims that SETI uses science but it is not science....
A position I have fully supported on another thread.

Martin, of course, has yet to provide anything more than his uninformed opinion.


The Definition Of Species​

and of course who can forget the Pixie walking back their claim of what a textbook example of a species is... by saying well errr uh...um... well it's fuzzy actually when defining species.
I wonder how long it took The Pix to google 'species'
The reality is that I said the definition is fizzy right at the start of the discussion on that subject. There was no "walking back" - not outside Martin's delusions anyway!

Here is where I first said it:

Donkeys exist because man had bred them from the African wild ass. I suspect you mean mule.
Mules and ligers are crosses between two species - but two very closely related species. Horse and donkey in the first instance, tiger and lion in the second. That is very different to a fish and a human, which are only very differently related.
In fact, it is an inevitable consequence of evolution that the definition of species is fuzzy.
By the way, those books you are colouring in - they are actually text books. Perhaps you should read the words, instead of just colouring in the pictures. You might learn something.

Obviously I am posting the surrounding paragraphs to give context, rather than to point out more of your ignorance, such as confusing donkeys and mules.

Martin has been repeatedly asked to provide his own definition. He has repeatedly dodged the question.


That SETI Obsession (Part 2)​

What Does the Pixie have to fear about admitting that SETI is a factual scientific endeavor?
Nothing.

It is not as though it is that good an analogy for ID, given: (1) we can actually look at the methodologies they use; (2) they are not pretending to be something they are not; and (3) if they did find something they would do all they could to learn more about the intelligent agent.

Well for one thing the Pix can't allow herself (or himself) to allow ID the same allowance...even though it already holds it. (we don't really need to care much about an opinion by the PIX that can't be supported anyway)....just fun to point that out often as possible.
What is Martin talking about here? Anyone got a clue?


What Of Archaeology And Forensic Science?​

Remember that archaeology and forensic science routinely detect design - and I would happily call them science. The idea that I reject SETI as science just because they are trying to detect design is thus refuted.

What is interesting is why Martin is not trying to use archaeology and forensic science to push ID. The reason for that is that they are very different to ID - they are real science, not pseudo-science.

In real science, when design is detected, that is only the start. Once a archaeologist has determined an artefact is designed, he will do all he can to learn more and the designer. Once a forensic science has determined a death is designed, he will do all he can to learn more and the designer.

Real science.

Compared to ID - once design has been detected it stops. It has to to maintain the disguise.

Thus, ID is peudo-science.


What Science Does ID Actually Use? None!​

So What Science does ID use? I guess the Pix is lacking the ability to read any links offered:

"Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."
Ooh look! Martin has highlighted "scientific methods" so they must be scientific methods.

Actually maybe not. The so-called "scientific methods" ID uses are:
  • observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act
  • find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence
And that, to Martin, is science.

How are they observing the information? No idea.
What types of information? No idea.

What this comes down to is that they look at things made by mankind. Then they find things that look similar in nature. Then they conclude design. That is, if something in nature looks looks designed, then by golly it is!

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the so-called "scientific methods" that ID uses.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is why ID is pseudo-acience.


The Scientific Method Includes Prediction​

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.
Okay, let's stop there. These guys either do not understands the scientific method or are just being deceitful; I would hesitate to say which.

The scientific method is indeed four steps, and they got the first two right. But then it goes awry.

The third step is to draw predictions from the hypothesis - that is necessary consequences that would be so if the hypothesis is true, and unlikely to not be so otherwise. The fourth step is to experimentally test those predictions. This is what makes a hypothesis falsifiable; if the predictions turn out to be false, the hypothesis is falsified.

The theory of relativity predicts a specific orbit for Mercury that when tested turns out to be so.

The theory of evolution predicts a specific pattern when comparing biochemistry between species that when tested turns out to be so.

ID... well, it makes no predictions. It cannot because the hypothesis is so vague - and the hypothesis has to remain vague to maintain the disguise. ID is pseudo-science.

This is why IDists pretend the scientific method is "a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion".

Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.
No way to make predictions, so no way to test predictions. So they pretend the scientific method is something else.

And sadly, some idiots fall for it.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Irreducible Complexity: A Tale Of Two Definitions​

One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
And now they mention "testable". This is part of wanting to look sciency, but without the science. When are the predictions? There are none.

There are two definitions of irreducible complexity:
  1. An irreducibly complex system is one that fails if any one part is removed
  2. An irreducibly complex system is one that cannot be reached by evolution
The argument relies on quietly switching between the two and knowing your audience are too gullible to notice. It goes like this:

Take the bacterial flagellum, poster boy for the ID movement. We start by using definition 1. Remove any component and the flagellum fails to work. Therefore the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. Now we quietly switch to definition 2 without telling anyone. Then we say that, as the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex it cannot be the product of evolution.

It is all smoke and mirrors, like most of ID. The reality is that the bacterial flagellum did evolve.


That SETI Obsession (Part 3)​

The scientific methods include the same science SETI uses ....
Let it go, man!


Probability Calculations For ID​

The scientific methods include the same science SETI uses ...sampling techniques... mathematical probabilities... ... as well as information theory and observations about intelligent action
Martin mentions mathematical probabilities...

He is advocating ID, so can he point us to where IDists have calculated the probability of ID?

Not the probability of evolution (or the probability of self-assembly!) - the probability of ID.

IDists like to trot out their probability calculations, based on various bad models, but they NEVER calculate the probability that ID is true.

Why is that? Because it is pseudo-science.


ID Is Just About Religion.​

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN Just Religion?
Well the Pixie wants to believe such a claim but the Pixie can't really defend it when put to the test.
I actually said ID is about religion, not that it is religion, but by now I think we have all come to expect Martin to ignore what I said and to substitute it with his own distortions.

Last time and the time before, I posed this question to Martin:

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?

Twice now he has refused to answer it. We all know the answer is YES. We have all seen the posts where he quotes the Bible; here are just a few:

https://forums.carm.org/threads/sup...explain-the-gospels.4418/page-122#post-457297
https://forums.carm.org/threads/sup...explain-the-gospels.4418/page-111#post-407042
https://forums.carm.org/threads/sup...-explain-the-gospels.4418/page-97#post-355150

But he has to maintain the disguise. He has to play the ID game. He has to pretend this is not creationism, this is not about religion.

He will dodge the question this time around too. I know, he knows it, we all know it. Because that is the nature of ID. It is about keeping up a façade. It is pseudo-science.

LOL one does not really have to wonder at all - when a darwinist is cornered and can't refute facts... well they mislead people -that is all they have .. honestly admitting truth is not in their self-preservation interest....
Looking back, I see that I have supported my claims and refuted yours, Martin, so this bluster rings more than a little hollow. Not to say delusional...
 
Top