Until you realize that the system is intelligently, not randomly, designed, and that the fundamental parts themselves are not intelligent.

The system is _self-assembling_. There is no designer involved.

If you are talking about a designer at the start, you are not talking about ID as compared to evolution. You are talking about the start of life, which evolution does not explain.

In ID vs evolution, ID is certainly meant to replace evolution as an alternative. And since evolution explains what is going on WHILE animals already exist, and since your example is a self-assembling system, your example does not constitute an example of ID (because "self" is not the same as caused by an external intelligent entity of some kind).

Again, evolution does NOT explain how life started.

If ID is meant to be an alternative explanation, it must explain the system existing, not the system coming into existence.

If you want to define ID according to non-scientists and militant atheists, feel free. I don't even bother to acknowledge either, frankly. They don't get to define it for the rest of us, though. Feel free to continue to be outraged by the MSNBC brand of Intelligent Design, while the rest of us decide for ourselves what "intelligent" and "design" means.

There is no scientist way of defining ID that is in any way different from mine. And I am no atheist.

And if everybody decides for themselves what "intelligent" and "design" means, there is no point in discussing it. It's like your bad analogy above, except that it fits now. If you use the word purple as you wish and blue as well, then nothing you tell about will have the colour it should have.

I also did look at study outside politics and "the church", that is why I read about evolution and don't believe in pseudo-science.

(Although "the church" does not, in fact, advocate ID or cresationism these days.)

BTW the definition of ID I used is the one used by "The Center for Science and Culture". If that is not the same ID that you are talking about, I would be curious as to what exactly you are calling "intelligent design" and why you are not using the same word as other people for it.

As I said, it is like someone saying "There's no life on Mars" offhand because we don't see people walking around. "Life" to the close-minded means little green men, or at least ants and squirrells. Likewise, "Intelligence" doesn't necessarily mean "brain" or "conciousness", and it MOST CERTAINLY can arise from multiple, separate entities and not a single, bearded man.

A cell in your brain isn't intelligent, but your brain as a whole is considered to be so. A single node in a network isn't intelligent, but a network of nodes can behave intelligently. A single genetic organism outside of drastic mutation is basically "fixed", but genetic communities and ecosystems tend to adapt, and in ways that can't always be explained as "non-intelligent" or simple survival of the genetically predisposed.

Perhaps I'm just ignorant after all these years of reading. Maybe you have better books. If you decide to teach me more about evolution than I learned in college, I'd no doubt be blessed.

Leauki:

"I almost didn't catch the "randomly". I didn't think it would come up again and again. But apparently it is very difficult to get it out of people's minds. Evolution is not random. There is no "intelligence vs randomness" duality here. The fact that you use the term makes me think that maybe you didn't know that."

...

"Natural Selection: Britannica Concise Encyclopedia Process that results in adaptation of an organism to its environment by means of selectively reproducing changes in its genotype. Variations that increase an organism's chances of survival and procreation are preserved and multiplied from generation to generation at the expense of less advantageous variations. As proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. It may arise from differences in survival, fertility, rate of development, mating success, or any other aspect of the life cycle. Mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift, all of which are random processes, also alter gene abundance. Natural selection moderates the effects of these processes because it multiplies the incidence of beneficial mutations over generations and eliminates harmful ones, since the organisms that carry them leave few or no descendants. See also selection."

In the end, the engine of change is random mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift. Intelligent design simply hypothesizes that such genetic change may not always be random.

If you have some theory as to how new beneficial genetic variance appears without design, and without being random, please feel free to pose it. Until then, there most certainly is a dichotomy here. One side said that the genetic changes that cause preferred characteristics occur randomly. The other hypothesizes that they might occur in a directed fashion in some instances.

Sounds like a genuine difference to me, and not one between smart and stupid people as you would paint it. Natural selection isn't at issue though, and neither frankly is evolution. To me it most certainly a "randomness vs. intelligent design" issue. People just make it "anti-science" to combat it mindlessly.

Schools should not teach random nonsense or religion.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I happen to believe scripture is not fantasy nor nonsense. Pretty strange comment coming from someone who believes in God I must say.

Evolutionists have had 100% of the time for decades because they can explain and teach

So also can creationists explain and teach and do so in Christian schools. They teach about God...not Darwin and his theory.

ID is NOT a theory

Then what is it? Can you prove ID?

At the very least proponents of creationism or ID should read a few books about evolution. I know they usually don't because I have listened to creationists and ID supporters. I recommend "The Ancestor's Tale", which I read at the moment. I have read the Bible, why shouldn't creationists read scientific works?

You've got to be kidding? The only thing the schools push is evolutionary books and views. So how do "we" not read these things? To me Evolution is not only nonsense but a lie to boot.

My son is going for his PH.d in Neuro Science having already graduated with a degree in Molecular Cell Biology and is one of the biggest creation believers I know. This is after going thru the Public School System (government schools) for 13 years pushing the other side at him. He got an 800 (perfect score) on his GRE in math so he's no dummy like many like to paint the Creationists as being.

Basically this whole argument is one religion (evolution) being pitted against the other (creation). And to marry the two together with ID or with Theistic Evolution is just being lukewarm.

Nice chatting w/ya tho!!

You too KFC! I think it's an interesting topic to discuss.

Thanks for sharing your views, we'll chat again later, no doubt

I'd much rather see audiences so grounded in science FACT that the Speilbergs of the world can't get by without hiring a science consultant... Yeah, I didn't care for "War of the Worlds" either.

This is a science all of its own, which has little to do with physical laws,

Now, don't go overboard. You're back to ID as a spiritual thing.

. . . in Jesus’ words: "The Kingdom of God does not come visibly. No one will say 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!'; because the Kingdom of God is within you.” - Luke 17.21

(an overly used quote by me. But I love that one)

I must be a fundie at heart

I believe that God can be found when we undergo an ‘inner transformation’ of the heart, rather than by appealing to traditional science.

The quantum enthusiasts would differ here:they seem to think they are on the verge of poking through the infinitesimal via strings and discovering parallel dimensions. Now that's dealing with the invisible visibly.

Happy New Year all!

The quantum enthusiasts would differ here:they seem to think they are on the verge of poking through the infinitesimal via strings and discovering parallel dimensions. Now that's dealing with the invisible visibly.

That’s very true. Traditional science is unable to discern whether God is “good”, or “love”, or not, however. It can’t prove or disprove whether God exists at all, in the sense of an all-knowing, omnipotent God.

Strings and parallel dimensions is an interesting field in science. I think that the parallel dimensions predicted by string theory renders plausible the existence of a Heavenly dimension. It will probably never be proved though, because if Heaven exists then it must exist in another realm or dimension. But I believe that human consciousness can detect God’s existence and the existence of Heaven, whether it be via intuition, or whatever you want to call it. This is what I mean by an ‘inner transformation’, which is really a transformation of consciousness. (There's a lot more depth to human consciousness than science has detected, I'm sure.) I personally adhere to Jospeh Benner’s words: “Spiritual growth results in an expansion of consciousness and opens up a new world, one of which previously the seeker had been wholly unaware, although it had always been present awaiting his recognition.”

This could all be summed up with the Christian phrase to be “born again”.

Do you know when he says here in our version "within you" is better translated "among you?" Remember who he's talking to. What Jesus was saying is the necessary elements of the kingdom were present and right in front of them and needed only to be recognized. It cannot mean "within you," for the kingdom certainly was completely unconnected with the Pharisees to whom he was speaking (v20). They did not have the spirit of God within them by any stretch. They hated him.

That’s an interesting view KFC. It comes down to personal interpretation again, however. What do you believe the Kingdom of God actually is, incidentally?

Even though you’ve concluded that “it cannot mean ‘within you’”, I believe that it can. I think that the Kingdom of God is akin to the realm of Spirit, where God is. During our time on earth, our connection with this realm - God’s Kingdom - resides within us. Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is right under our noses, and we don’t have to go anywhere to find it. My interpretation of Jesus' words is something like, “You won’t find it in the things of the world. It will come to you when you become born again and acknowledge it in your hearts.”

You’ll notice that the Bible’s reference to the Kingdom of God is orientated around spiritual matters, or ‘inner things’, (as well as existing 'up there and out there'. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.) St. Paul said, “For God's Kingdom is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of the righteousness, peace, and joy which the Holy Spirit gives.”

In Mark 4.11 Jesus says, “You have been given the secret to the Kingdom of God. But others, who are on the outside … may look and look, but not see; they may listen and listen, yet not understand. For if they did, they would turn to God, and He would heal them.” -

Here, I believe that “others on the outside” refers to those who have opted for a worldly interpretation of life. They look, but do not see. They listen, yet do not understand. They are caught up in worldly priorities and materialistic issues, and believe that the truth can be grasped by the intellect alone, rather than the intellect and the heart combined. They know all about the world, but they know nothing of God.

This all fits in with the issue of parallel dimensions and the spirit realm, too, I suppose.