Tim, a detailed description of the actual mind is not required to make this a scientific theory. Faizal understands this. He does not believe it until you can show a mind exists outside our purview but this is not required for it to be a scientific theory. If you want to take the position that you don’t believe it until you see direct evidence of the designer that is fine.
For me the evidence we see inside the cell is very strong indication that a mind is behind the origin and evolution of living organisms.
All you do is dodge question and cry about the term “disembodied”. Yet the fact remains you can’t describe where this "mind’ physically exists. Human minds exist in the substrate of the human brain, in the electrical and chemical processes of the synapses and neurons. “Disembodied” is the exact correct term for the magic supermind you keep asserting.
Once more with the usual ignorance based argument from personal incredulity. You never change, do you?
Round and round and round we go…Bill still has no physical mechanism or no evidence a mind by itself can physically manipulate matter but he’ll make the same silly claims ad nauseum.
No, I do not support that claim. ID is not a theory. A description of the mind that is supposed to have created life, and how it did so, is crucial to ID becoming a theory. It is not even remotely close to the barest beginnings of doing that.
I am not going down the straw-man road. I think we had enough discussion for today. You admitted that ID was a scientific theory. As far as I am concerned we can agree to disagree at this point. The inductive evidence doesn’t work for you at this point and I am fine with that.
Oh dear, you used the word “disembodied”. That’s Bill’s “Get Out Of Jail Free” card to dodge all questions about his amazing claims. Watch, every question you ask will be deemed a “strawman” and ignored.
Minds are not capable of making DNA, or proteins, or whatever you think happened, just by thinking about stuff. Your claim is false. That ID is not true is based on the fact that we know what minds are capable of, and what they are NOT capable of. Poofing living things into existence belongs to the 2nd category, unless you care to present the observed instances to the contrary.
Ironically @Giltil has argued for and defended the concept of Genetic Entropy around here before at length. I have to wonder how all this “rust” he’s referred to in his analogies would not constitute junk-DNA on the GE hypothesis.
We disagree here. I don’t think you have any scientific basis for this claim. General relativity is a theory yet we don’t have a detailed description of gravity.
Your hypothesized magic supernatural disembodied “mind” POOFING life into existence isn’t gravity. General relativity makes testable predictions and can be falsified. Nothing ID-Creationism is proposing is scientific.
You can asked detailed questions about ID and I cannot ask them about GR? ID is a scientific theory as general relativity is a scientific theory. They both offer a mechanism that is capable of the task at had. They also have similar limits.
As I understand it, general relativity describes why “gravity” acts as it does.
From Wikipedia:
General relativity generalizes special relativity and refines Newton’s law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present.
Is there a generally accepted definition of intelligent design that could be similarly stated? I believe that I’ve mostly seen definitions that state that many aspects of life and the universe seem to be better explained by having been intelligently designed rather than having come about on their own. To your point above, if you wish to present ID as a scientific theory in the same vein as GR, there should be a definition that is similarly substantial as that of GR.
Do you have a similar definition for ID? You certainly do not want to use the Wikipedia definition here.
