# Intelligent Design Question

leopold99 said:
a stalking we will go, a stalking we will go, hi ho the dairyo a stalking we will go.
No! No! No! It's "Hi Ho the Merryo...."

Alright. You've both been warned. You have now both been cited for violation of Federal Law and must appear in the United States Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., tomorrow at 8:00 A.M EST. Failure to appear will result in warrants being issued for your arrest for contempt.

And just in case you want to cite Dumbski's "specified complexity" term, here's a citation to the journal The Skeptic: Perakh, Mark (2005). The Dream World of William Dembski's Creationism. Skeptic, 11(4). (Link to authorized reprint at Talk Reason)

What part of "irreducible complexity" do you find irrefutable?

Last edited:
A Dreaming we will go, A dreaming we will go, High Ho the Merry Oh with Dumbski we will go."

"Dembski has suggested a Universal Probability Bound (UPB) which he chose to be UPB=1/2×10-150. This threshold translates into about 500 bits of information. If the probability of a specified event is over the UPB, that is, if the information associated with this event is over 500 bits, the event, according to Dembski, cannot be attributed to chance [thus there MUST be an Intelligent Designer!].

Dembski prescribes using UPB as the threshold of a sufficiently small probability. On the other hand, in many of his examples, he views the probability as small enough for inferring design even when it is by orders of magnitude larger than the UPB; for example, he considers a seven-digit phone number as sufficiently improbable to justify a design inference although the probability of this number is immensely larger than the UPB....

Dembski's definition of information:

I(E)= -log2 p(E) ...........(1)

where I stands for information associated with an individual event E, p is the probability of that event, and the logarithm is to the base of 2. In information theory, I is often called surprisal; another, more recent term is self-information.The definition simply expresses probability in a logarithmic form. In this rendition, the concept of information contains nothing beyond the concept of probability. If a definition has been selected, it has to be applied consistently. Dembski refers to the same quantity I as complexity....

Dembski's so highly acclaimed achievements are just a nebulous dream; the real contents of his ideas and notions are in an inverse relation to the intensity of the praise heaped upon him by the ID crowd. If Dembski's work is the best the ID advocates have to show, then the entire ID enterprise is a political movement that wholly lacks scientific significance."
The Skeptic: Perakh, Mark (2005). The Dream World of William Dembski's Creationism.
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Skeptic_paper.cfm

"I'm a believer, I'm a believer, Yes I am...." The Monkees

The journal "Science" proclaimed that the fresh evidence of "evolution in action" was the "Top Scientific Breakthrough of 2005."

The Nine Runner-ups:

Planetary Exploration: With spacecraft at or on the way to the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, a comet, an asteroid, Saturn, and the very edge of the solar system, planetary discovery soared in 2005. The high point may have been the landing of Europe's Huygens probe on Titan, Saturn's largest moon.

Plant Research: Several key molecular cues behind flowering and other plant mysteries and surprises came to light in 2005. For example, plant molecular biologists pinned down the identity of a signal that initiates the seasonal development of flowers.

Neutron Stars: In 2005, new instruments yielded vivid insights into the most violent behaviors of neutron stars. An intense pulse of radiation from near the center of the Milky Way may have been the result of a short gamma-ray burst — a rapid merger of two neutron stars or a neutron star and a black hole.

Brain Wiring and Disease: Several studies in 2005 suggest that diseases such schizophrenia, Tourette syndrome, and dyslexia are rooted in "faulty wiring" of the brain's neural circuitry during development in the womb.

Earth's Origin: Researchers looked at earthly rocks and meteorites that resemble the starting material of the solar system — and found that their atoms were significantly different. Some scientists say early Earth materials came from a different part of the solar system, while others say parts of early Earth are hidden deep within the planet.

Protein Research: The most detailed molecular portrait to date of a voltage-gated potassium channel was unveiled in 2005. These channels, gatekeeper proteins that usher potassium ions in and out of cells, are as key to nerve and muscle functioning as transistors are to computers.

Global Warming and Climate Change: In 2005, evidence linking humans to global warming continued to accumulate, and U.S. politicians began to take notice.

Cell Signaling: Dynamic views of how cells respond to the chemical and environmental signals all around them took hold in 2005, thanks to efforts to track multiple inputs and outputs of cell signaling networks simultaneously.

Fusion Research: The struggle over the location of the world's first fusion reactor has ended — the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor will be built at Cadarache in southern France and not in Japan.

They also said that research in particle physics ranked as the "breakdown of the year," due in part to the U.S. federal government's cancellation of two multimillion-dollar experiments (BTeV and RSVP). The journal's roundup didn't mention the late-breaking controversy over South Korean stem cell research.

Eight fields were identified as "areas to watch in 2006": the avian flu, gravity-wave detection, RNAi-based treatments, ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, microbial evolution, the "superflow" of solidified helium, high-temperature superconductivity — and the potential for continued sightings of the ivory-billed woodpecker, long presumed extinct but recently rediscovered.

Source: "Evolution evidence rated as top ‘breakthrough’: Science selects ‘hot topic’ to lead its annual list of research highlights," MSNBC news service reports, Dec. 22, 2005.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10574901/

"Hi ho, Hi ho, and off through Science I go...."

Judge Declares Intelligent Design is Creationism in Disguise:

"A federal judge has ruled that teaching intelligent design in US public high schools is unconstitutional. Judge John Jones went on to state that intelligent design was clearly religious and indubitably not science. "We conclude that the religious nature of intelligent design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," he writes. In his 139-page opinion, Jones reviews the history of intelligent design. He declares: "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that intelligent design is a religious view, a mere re-labelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

The decision will not have legal precedence for similar cases in other districts, but because of the thoroughness of the opinion, it may have what lawyers term "persuasive authority". The ruling bans the reading of the Dover statement, which was due to go ahead next month at the beginning of the ninth-grade evolution unit. The school board that wrote the policy has since been voted out, and their replacements are unlikely to appeal.

Biologists who testified in the case were even more ecstatic. "I think it is everything we could have hoped for," says Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. "The opinion is splendid. What is very clear is that the judge worked hard, diligently followed the scientific arguments, and understood them thoroughly."

"The whole place here is saying that this is beyond our wildest dreams," says Kevin Padian, a palaeontologist and trial witness from the University of California, Berkeley, speaking from Harrisburg. "This means that as science, intelligent design is effectively dead."

Source: "Evolution Wins Pennsylvania Trial," by Emma Marris, Nature, published online: 21 December 2005: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051219/full/051219-8.html

valich said:
Judge Declares Intelligent Design is Creationism in Disguise:

From http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659292

By E&P Staff

Published: December 13, 2005 12:15 PM ET

NEW YORK A new Gallup survey released today finds that four decades after the "God Is Dead" controversy was first noted, Americans retain a strong belief in a higher power. Some 94% think God exists.

Only 5% feel God "does not exist" -- and even most of them "are not sure" of that. Exactly 1% are certain there is no God.

If the US government is by the people, why do we have judges that don't speak for the people. If 94% think God exists, why do we not teach creationism? In 1777, the government recommended that 20,000 copies of the Bible be imported from outside the colonies because there was a great shortage of Bibles due to the interruptions in trade with England. The Bibles were ordered and paid for by the newly formed government. The first page of each Bible was inscribed, "Approved for the American people." A few years later, Congress approved a distinctly American Bible, Aitken's Bible, published under Congressional patronage. Until the mid 1900's, our government continually sought for ways to integrate religious principles into our nation, and even paid for it most of the time!

I'm glad the 6% are happy that creationism is not taught in schools. Im one of the 94%
Why do the 6% have a larger voice in America? America used to be a democracy. Small interest groups should not have the power they have today. Have the 94% just lost their balls? Next thing you know, 6% will be asking for minority status and that Christmas be removed as a national holiday...and I think they will win in the courts. Who do the judges speak for, if not for the majority?

I don't recall anyone saying that evolution in any way excludes gods or religious cults. It is only the cults themselves that fear this. Science could really give two shits less. What a pathetic religion someone must belong to where the god is so feeble as not to have been able to create using the precise mechanisms for evolution that are abundantly evident to science. What a pathetic god indeed.

But "why do the 6% have a larger voice?" Because the rights of the minority is protected by the U.S. Constitution which dictates that no majority may apply its religious beliefs on those that have different beliefs. Nonsense like 'creation' was tolerated for far too long, and now our nation is at an all-time high in religious diversity. To exclude others because of a majority's beliefs is wrong and is the exact reason the nation was founded.

I'm not really an expert on the american judicial system, but I'd imagine a judge is not there to do what the mob wants. A judge interprets the law.

If i am not totally incorrect you have some kind of statement somewhere that state and church should be separated.

But don't be sad, you can still go to church and listen to a sermon on creation.

jayleew said:
If 94% think God exists, why do we not teach creationism?
Because the judge was intelligent enough to recognise the very simple point that you have conveniently ignored. (I would not for one moment suggest you are too intellectually challenged to have grasped it.) Thinking god exists and believing in creationism are two entirely different things. There is no great intellectual challenge in believing God exists and that evolution is a fact. Even the septagenarian sitting on the throne of St Peter has no trouble with the concept.
In future please refrain from such intellectually dishonest arguments. The judge has already commented on the dishonesty of many of those speaking for ID in the case. It seems clear that you would fit right in. [Of course, if you would prefer me to call you stupid rather than dishonest, I don't have a problem with that. I presume you would have a better idea as to which one you are.]

SkinWalker said:
But "why do the 6% have a larger voice?" Because the rights of the minority is protected by the U.S. Constitution which dictates that no majority may apply its religious beliefs on those that have different beliefs. Nonsense like 'creation' was tolerated for far too long, and now our nation is at an all-time high in religious diversity. To exclude others because of a majority's beliefs is wrong and is the exact reason the nation was founded.

But we're not talking about religion, we're talking about Intelligent Design, something I think nearly all prominent religions believe in.

Besides, by making the 6% happy, you are excluding a portion of the 94% who do not believe that evolution can produce new species of life.

jayleew said:
But we're not talking about religion, we're talking about Intelligent Design, something I think nearly all prominent religions believe in.

The bible describes creation not intelligent design. I think most religions have creation stories (which are all different btw).

spuriousmonkey said:
I'm not really an expert on the american judicial system, but I'd imagine a judge is not there to do what the mob wants. A judge interprets the law.

Yes, the judge is doing a good job of not being pressured into the mob's wishes. My question is why doesn't the mob not use their vote representatives to better define the law.

spuriousmonkey said:
If i am not totally incorrect you have some kind of statement somewhere that state and church should be separated.

But don't be sad, you can still go to church and listen to a sermon on creation.
That statement is not in our constitution. It was in a letter which was to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

But, the idea is behind the decree in the constitution, which is why I can respect the judge...but not the people who sit on their butts and let a judge not voice their opinions with their vote. I know judges are appointed, but the right representatives can get the job done.

Last edited:
jayleew said:
Besides, by making the 6% happy, you are excluding a portion of the 94% who do not believe that evolution can produce new species of life.
Are you congenitally stupid? You have produced no evidence that people who believe in God do not believe in evolution. (Or the reverse for that matter.) Stop making the unwarrranted correlation between belief in God and rejection of evolution. Not all spiritual people are as devoid of intelligence and education as yourself.

Ophiolite said:
Because the judge was intelligent enough to recognise the very simple point that you have conveniently ignored. (I would not for one moment suggest you are too intellectually challenged to have grasped it.) Thinking god exists and believing in creationism are two entirely different things. There is no great intellectual challenge in believing God exists and that evolution is a fact. Even the septagenarian sitting on the throne of St Peter has no trouble with the concept.
I don't have a problem with that, when did I say that I did? At this point, I know as much as you and I don't know God well enough (or hardly at all) to know if God used evolution. I guess you are too used to debating this issue of evolution vs creationism, you are still in the mode. Let's talk about something else now like how the government of the US doesn't reflect the voice of the majority.
Sorry, I took that bit of info on the judge to a different avenue, that is probably better in a politics thread.
You are right anyone who thinks they are incompatible is arrogant for assuming to know what God can and cannot do, or what he did or did not do, or what he is, or what he will do.

Ophiolite said:
In future please refrain from such intellectually dishonest arguments. The judge has already commented on the dishonesty of many of those speaking for ID in the case. It seems clear that you would fit right in. [Of course, if you would prefer me to call you stupid rather than dishonest, I don't have a problem with that. I presume you would have a better idea as to which one you are.]

Exactly which argument are you acusing me of being dishonest?

I am posing a question(s), not an argument or statement. I want to know why the Bible is no longer accepted in public schools. If Congress is supposed to not establish religion, why did they start it and allow it for almost 200 years? Why, until the mid 1963, did America want the Bible in school, and why do they now not want it? Apparently, we still do, so why was it taken out in the first place?

Ophiolite said:
Are you congenitally stupid? You have produced no evidence that people who believe in God do not believe in evolution. (Or the reverse for that matter.) Stop making the unwarrranted correlation between belief in God and rejection of evolution. Not all spiritual people are as devoid of intelligence and education as yourself.

jayleew said:
Besides, by making the 6% happy, you are excluding a portion of the 94% who do not believe that evolution can produce new species of life.
Hello, I accurately said "a portion" which can be anywhere from 1% to 94%. The fact is that even if it is two people that believe in God and not that evolution was the tool of God, it is unconstitutional to discredit their religion in a sanctioned government school. It is possible to teach evolution, but not the origins of species, without infringing on at least one person's right of religion.

If you are going to teach the origin of species as part of the evolution lesson, you must include all religious beliefs, not the specifics, but only of how an external entity could have been the cause for the new species, either with or without evolution's help.

It sucks to be civilized, but I know you are just being defensive...you have stereotyped me incorrectly by thinking that I am just another Christian zealot. I am close to an agnostic theist and I don't mind questioning God. At least get my perspective before you start calling me names, so you know what you are calling whatever you are.

Last edited:
jayleew said:
It is possible to teach evolution, but not the origins of species, without infringing on at least one person's right of religion.

If you are going to teach the origin of species as part of the evolution lesson, you must include all religious beliefs, not the specifics, but only of how an external entity could have been the cause for the new species, either with or without evolution's help..
Nonsense. Religion has no place in the teaching of science. I have no objection to creationism being taught in religious studies, but not in a science class. Are you also in favour of teaching horoscope reading in Astronomy, and if not, why not?

My insults were not directed against you as a possible Christian Zealot, but as some one framing a weak, stupid argument.

jayleew said:
But we're not talking about religion, we're talking about Intelligent Design, something I think nearly all prominent religions believe in.

"Intelligent" design *is* creation. Creation *is* of religion. Regardless of how you try to word it. So if you are talking about "intelligent" design, you most assuredly are talking about religion.

It is possible to teach evolution, but not the origins of species, without infringing on at least one person's right of religion.

Origin of species based on evolution is not taught in church, is it? If I attended that church, would they be infringing upon my right of reality?

If you are going to teach the origin of species as part of the evolution lesson, you must include all religious beliefs, not the specifics, but only of how an external entity could have been the cause for the new species, either with or without evolution's help.

Impossible. Each persons religious belief system is as intracate and different as their fingerprints - no two belief systems are the same. Each individual could argue their version of creation and would as valid as the next.