Okay so what if I am, the relevance of calling me arrogant is what? I would posit that the majority of posts in this topic have boiled down to base, “I disagree so it's wrong and everyone who thinks it's right is stupid” comments and considering that the context of this forum is serious discussion trying to smack people's hands a bit (so to speak) I don't think is that inappropriate.
You do realize that these topics have gone on for years and years in these forums, right? Some people are simply tired of the same old arguments over and over.
Alright granted, I did neglect to mention OEC, but as far as what I described being the most extreme version of YEC, I don't know of any other form that YEC takes.
Officially? You have to remember many Christians interpret parts of the Genesis literally and some metaphorically. some interpret the creation story literally and the Noah's Ark story metaphorically, or viceversa. So you have potentially dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of different interpretations there.
Okay so Mr. Johnson clearly states here that this is his subjective opinion of it. It doesn't state what ID is it states what Mr Johnsons opinion of the implication of ID.
Okay this is exposing the motives of at least Mr. Johnson and Mr. Wells or what he thinks the motives of it are. Stephen Hawking has stated that he hopes that his work with physics will help us understand the mind of God while Steven Weinberg hopes to use it to destroy religion, the motivation isn't what is important it's the science itself. The fundamental groundwork for most of the modern scientific fields were laid by creationist Christians for the purpose of learning about God by exploring his creation. Does their motive invalidate the science they did?
Do you realize where these two quotes come from?
Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology
A book with the purpose of expounding upon the theological implication and meanings of ID in the context of Christianity. Furthermore if Christianity is true than reality should reflect and mesh with that and the point being a harmonization of ID and Christian theology. I fail to see why these quotes have any relevance
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying ID has less merit because of this. I'm fully aware that that is not how reality works. I merely meant to point out that your view of ID as strictly scientific is... not the most popular, shall we say.
How is this relevant? Well, the arguments linking creationism to ID have merit because, according to its leaders, they
are the same thing.
Is ID true or false? I don't know, I certainly don't believe so. But modern ID is undeniably a continuation of creationism.
I fail to see how what I have described fails to meet this standard, could you elaborate exactly what would be needed and how I have not presented it? Maybe give specific examples of what would be necessary to fulfill the requirements that I am failing to take into account.
Objective data. I'm not going to argue your motor example here (we're already doing that), but it's a subjective example. Positive ID, objective empiric data.
Because truth is legislated, right? We can all decide that evolution isnt a scientific theory but would you say that would mean it isnt?
Courts can be wrong, quite true. But experts on ID have argued their case.
There are some general guidelines scientists follow, such as submitting their work up for peer review. ID proponents do not do so. Theories must be falsifiable: how do you prove ID wrong? And very importantly, it
must,
must change itself in light of new data, and more than that, it must be open to it. What's the last change to ID that has been done?
I mean complexity in the context of specific purposeful function and information. A computer code for example contains understandable, meaningful and purposeful information. We only see that kind of information in “nature” in genetic code where the placement and usage of T,A,C and G actually matters for the execution of a function and the designated conglomerate of the “letters” actually produces meaningful and varying results depending on how they are organized and they are organized in such a way to make use of these
And a great deal of it is junk DNA. In a computer code, programmers (correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm not one) add no useless information. And while junk DNA does have its use, a lot of it is simply white noise.
Complexity indicates trial and error. the more complex something is, the more errors were made to achieve it.
Last I checked a spider web had to be made by a spider.
A non-intelligent one, yes. The ones that can't do it properly die off. We call it natural selection.
Cave formations, molecules and weather patterns do not contain specific information or specific function with a purpose. When hydrogen bonds with oxygen it doesn't do so for the purpose of making water they combine and water is the result, blind cause and effect. It doesn't exhibit specific purpose. The spider web does, it is a complex entity that a spider creates fro the purpose of catching prey.
You define complexity as the capacity to contain information?
Before I tackle this, you are aware that this is an argument from incredulity, right? "I do not know how complexity could've arisen naturally, so therefore it couldn't have"?
I want to make something clear, thougy. We're talking about evolution, and *not* abiogenesis, right? Because speciation, genetic drift, natural selections, beneficial mutations and the sort have already been observed. This isn't up to debate; the flu vaccine they give you is based on our knowledge of evolution. Modern medicine is based on evolution, Biology's guiding principle is evolution (akin to physics and gravity). I assume you're arguing common descent, because evolution itself is what makes the medicines you drink and pesticides you use.
