What's the Mechanism of Intelligent Design? This article from Ann Gauger is probably one of the best well thought out and brilliantly articulated responses I have witnessed from this...

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

This article from Ann Gauger is probably one of the best well thought out and brilliantly articulated responses I have witnessed from this intelligent scientist. University of Toronto biochemist Larry Moran's attempt to corner and trap Intelligent design proponents with this gotcha question completely fails it's design attempt. Read Ann Gaugers response here and be amazed at her brilliant response and explanation.

Not all science involves observable entities or repeatable phenomena, for example --you can't watch all causes at work or witness all events happen again and again, yet you can still make inferences about what caused unique or singular events based on the evidence available to you. Historical sciences such as archeology, geology, forensics, and evolutionary biology all infer causal events in the past to explain the occurrence of other events or to explain the evidence we have left behind in the present.

For such inference to work, the cause invoked must now be known to produce the effect in question. It's no good proposing flying squirrels as the cause of the Grand Canyon, or a silt deposit as the cause of the Pyramids. Squirrels don't dig giant canyons or even small ones, and silt doesn't move heavy stone blocks into an ordered three-dimensional array.

However, we know from our experience that erosion by running water can and does produce gullies, then arroyos, and by extension, canyons. We know that intelligent agents have the necessary design capabilities to envision and build a pyramid. No natural force does. These are inferences based on our present knowledge of cause and effect or "causes now in operation."

"In our experience the only thing capable of causing the origin of digital code or functional information or causal circularity is intelligence and we know that the origin of life and the origin of animal life, for example, required the production of just such things in living systems.

The theory of intelligent design does not propose a mechanism (a strictly or necessarily materialistic cause) for the origin of biological information. Rather, it proposes an intelligent or mental cause. In so doing, it does exactly what we want a good historical scientific theory to do. It proposes a cause that is known from our uniform and repeated experience (to borrow a phrase) to have the power to produce the effect in question, which in this case, is functional information in living systems.

"According to Lyle's principal the best explanation is the one that invokes a cause which we know from our experience which can produce the effect we are trying to explain."- Stephen Meyer.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/whats_the_mecha100801.html

(Download)

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

so the question is "what is the mechanism of intelligent design?

...and the answer is, "there is no mechanism, just a cause"

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

green wrote:

so the question is "what is the mechanism of intelligent design?

...and the answer is, "there is no mechanism, just a cause"

No mechanism and no cause, He is the First and only uncaused cause.

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

Racmanaz wrote:

No mechanism and no cause, He is the First and only uncaused cause.

well science deals only with the mechanism.... and does not even address the cause.

...and religion should not bother addressing the mechanism... it does such a bad job.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

green wrote:

well science deals only with the mechanism.... and does not even address the cause.

...and religion should not bother addressing the mechanism... it does such a bad job.

You didn't read this article did you? lol

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

Racmanaz wrote:

You didn't read this article did you? lol

I actually did...I don't know why...

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

green wrote:

I actually did...I don't know why...

It's ok, I read the entire article as well :)

slocumeddie Loc: Inside your head, again

Racmanaz wrote:

It's ok, I read the entire article as well :)

Good.....Now it is time to read Lyell's Principles(from which you have been quoting repeatedly over the last month).......If you need a link to the text, it is available online, and I can provide it..........

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

Racmanaz wrote:

This article from Ann Gauger is probably one of the best well thought out and brilliantly articulated responses I have witnessed from this intelligent scientist. University of Toronto biochemist Larry Moran's attempt to corner and trap Intelligent design proponents with this gotcha question completely fails it's design attempt. Read Ann Gaugers response here and be amazed at her brilliant response and explanation.

Not all science involves observable entities or repeatable phenomena, for example --you can't watch all causes at work or witness all events happen again and again, yet you can still make inferences about what caused unique or singular events based on the evidence available to you. Historical sciences such as archeology, geology, forensics, and evolutionary biology all infer causal events in the past to explain the occurrence of other events or to explain the evidence we have left behind in the present.

For such inference to work, the cause invoked must now be known to produce the effect in question. It's no good proposing flying squirrels as the cause of the Grand Canyon, or a silt deposit as the cause of the Pyramids. Squirrels don't dig giant canyons or even small ones, and silt doesn't move heavy stone blocks into an ordered three-dimensional array.

However, we know from our experience that erosion by running water can and does produce gullies, then arroyos, and by extension, canyons. We know that intelligent agents have the necessary design capabilities to envision and build a pyramid. No natural force does. These are inferences based on our present knowledge of cause and effect or "causes now in operation."

"In our experience the only thing capable of causing the origin of digital code or functional information or causal circularity is intelligence and we know that the origin of life and the origin of animal life, for example, required the production of just such things in living systems.

The theory of intelligent design does not propose a mechanism (a strictly or necessarily materialistic cause) for the origin of biological information. Rather, it proposes an intelligent or mental cause. In so doing, it does exactly what we want a good historical scientific theory to do. It proposes a cause that is known from our uniform and repeated experience (to borrow a phrase) to have the power to produce the effect in question, which in this case, is functional information in living systems.

"According to Lyle's principal the best explanation is the one that invokes a cause which we know from our experience which can produce the effect we are trying to explain."- Stephen Meyer.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/whats_the_mecha100801.html

This article from Ann Gauger is probably one of th... (show quote)

Gee, Rac! Another party? I see that you have invited the usual guest. James hasn't showed up yet?

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

slocumeddie wrote:

Good.....Now it is time to read Lyell's Principles(from which you have been quoting repeatedly over the last month).......If you need a link to the text, it is available online, and I can provide it..........

Not necessary, already read that part on 2-3 different online websites way before you could find it, it really wasn't that difficult to find. :)

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Bangee5 wrote:

Gee, Rac! Another party? I see that you have invited the usual guest. James hasn't showed up yet?

I'm sure he will show up as soon as he's done photoshopping another doggy picture :)

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

Racmanaz wrote:

I'm sure he will show up as soon as he's done photoshopping another doggy picture :)

:thumbup: He is doing a bad job at it as well... carry on!

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Bangee5 wrote:

:thumbup: He is doing a bad job at it as well... carry on!

Hey! I'm just having some fun ;)

slocumeddie Loc: Inside your head, again

Racmanaz wrote:

Not necessary, already read that part on 2-3 different online websites way before you could find it, it really wasn't that difficult to find. :)

Oh.....good.....!!!.....Could you explain it please.........???

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

slocumeddie wrote:

Oh.....good.....!!!.....Could you explain it please.........???

It's already been explained 2 dozen times on my threads, you read it for yourself and you still can't understand it?