A Federal judge says otherwise… as a matter of law, ID is creationism.

“The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism” (page 31)

“The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” (page 43)

“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.” (page 64)

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

What natural processes? Honeybees are intelligent, especially as a group. By natural processes, I assume that to mean by non-directed processes like wind, heat, erosion, etc.

Couldn’t one just as easily say that honeycombs were the result of natural processes? That’s why I said termite castles could be considered to possess artificiality by *some* definitions.

I like your termite illustration though, although perhaps honey-bees would be a better example. Could it be said that a honey-comb possessed high-CSI? If so, would that not add another example of non-human intelligence (although admittedly not HIGH intelligence) producing CSI (although admittedly not HIGH amounts of CSI)? It would certainly be a good starting point, and it would also draw a line of correlation between the amount of intelligence and the amount of CSI (greater intelligence, greater CSI: less intelligence, less CSI).
Interesting. I’ll have to think about that.

I believe that it has been sufficiently demonstrated. Aside from the object of our current scrutiny — biology, design is the only known process by which CSI originates. Is that a correct statement?

I’ll admit I have no idea about how to quantify ‘articiality’. We obviously can quantify CSI; the question is whether CSI really has so strong a correlation with design as you suppose. So we can quantify CSI, but maybe not link it to design, whereas we can link artificiality to design (I’m not going to say we can link it to ‘intelligent’ design because depending on your definition, non-intelligent designs like termite castles could be considered artificial) but maybe not quantify it. It’s a tricky subject, and that’s why I think IDists are far too quick in asserting that CSI = design.

Exactly! The argument is, and will continue to be, whether such evidence exists.

“However, upon further research, it turned out they use artificiality as an indicator of design, not complexity.”

Essentially, yes. Artificiality, I assume, means “not natural in origin”. That, however, isn’t quantifiable. You have to measure something in order to define the artificiality of something. I believe that is the goal of theories involving CSI in biology.

Nathan

stay tuned, I may have an article on the way that may challenge that assertion.

“You could say that particle theory is also rarely question. The point has little relevance.”

You’re welcome to think that. However, I considered the statement highly relevant to the topic. I’m sorry if you disagree. If I were writing on a challenge to particle theory, your statement would be quite relevant, now, wouldn’t it?

“The theory of evolution is complete because it not only states that creatures evolve, it explains the “force” that “drives” evolution”

Indeed, the evolutionary synthesis is quite a broad brush. ID, however, is not. While the detection of design and the identity of the designer are not mutually exclusive, they are not necessarily reliant on each other for veracity. Remember that. There is no design synthesis. Give us 150 years and billions in research grants, then we’ll talk.

Until then, your unreasonable call for one theory to answer the questions of another are simply a waste of time.

“ID doesn’t explain at all the force that “intelligently designed” life or how it did so. So, as it stands, it is an incomplete and superfluous theory.”

And the evolutionary synthesis doesn’t explain self-organization. But as I’m sure you already know, it doesn’t have to, since they are 2 separate scientific concentrations that seek to answer 2 different questions. Be consistent!