ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Neither does ID deny the claim. If they data surely warrants that biological forms have one designer, I fail to see how ID cannot simply acknowledge it. Theories are often times revised as irreducible complexity has been by Dembski. The concept itself of an intelligent designer, is agreed on both sides as far as I am aware which you agree to as well. However, ID is certainly not against macro-evolution if it’s done by a designer but they are always open for evidence against it. I know there are some IDers who deny macro-evolution altogether so it’s certainly not a problem for the ID concept itself. IDEAcenter defines the intelligent design theory as follows

—————–
Intelligent design is a scientific theory which seeks to determine if some objects in the natural world were designed through recognizing and detecting the types of information known to be produced by the intelligent agents when they act.
——————-

Establishing design is one thing, but how the designer did it is of another discussion. Based on the data however, ReMine demonstrates that it is the work of one designer. Instead of dealing with what category the Biotic Message fits best in, you should do well to view the arguments in support of it and decide for yourself whether the data warrants such a conclusion.

[quote]One can make a case for creationism without citing the Bible, or anyother religious book. I believe Dr Duane Gish used to do that in his debates.[/quote]

Still doesn’t omit the fact, to the evolutionist that they got this idea from the Bible nor do the creationists deny it. I do believe they are scientists despite the empty rhetorical arguments by evolutionists.

Although it appears this discussion is important to you, I have already suggested Walter avoid getting drawn into a discussion of mostly irrelevant semantic quibbles, which is how I would view this discussion. He was gracious enough to devote a lot time to answering this question.

We are very lucky that Walter has visited this site, and if we want people of his caliber visiting here, we ought to be very sparing of the questions we pose to him. You may enter your disagreement, but my interest was that we represent Walter in the way he would like to be represented.

For the sake of inviting Walter back on reallly imporant topics, like technical issues on his papers, I would ask you to refrain from getting into an argument with him over this issue. You may not like his answer, but I think you ought to be willing to acknowledge how he chooses to represent his own work. If he would prefer his book be associated with ID, given that he wrote the book, I think it’s not too much to ask to grant him that, given that he is the author.

You may argue with me over the classifications and what I say, but I would ask you drop the argument with Walter. It’s enough for me to know how he would like his colleagues to represent his work. If I have to add the qualifier, “ReMine’s ID theories go somewhat beyond the scope of ID as defined by Dembski-Meyer-Behe” that ought to settle it.

But first, Mats, do you have a copy of Biotic Message? If you don’t, then I would especially ask you to drop the argument.

Notice that I am not saying that Message Theory is not in agreement with ID. Young Earth Creationism is in agreement ID. What I am saying is that Message Theory makes very specific claims that fall outside the bonds of ID science (i.e., how many Designers, refuting evolution – usualy misnamed “macro-evolution”).

So if the BM is an ID book, and since the BM says that the data points to One Designer, then ID scientists can’t say that ID makes no claims about the source of the design.

However, if, as I believe is in the book, the BM is a creationist book, then, even though it is in general agreement with ID, it falls more nicely in the creationist camp.

Notice that not having “religious claims”, or citing religious books doesn’t make it less or more creationist.

Lastly, the fact that darwinists classify “creationism” as religion doesn’t change the fact that the claims the BM makes are more in agreement with creationism than with ID.

One can make a case for creationism without citing the Bible, or anyother religious book. I believe Dr Duane Gish used to do that in his debates.

Salvador wrote:

… I chose to classify Biotic Message as an ID theory and not a creationist theory.

Salvador is correct. If one were forced to classify on this matter, then Biotic Message Theory (or Message Theory for short) is better classified as an intelligent design (ID) theory — though that classification is influenced by the prevailing definitions of our times.

That is, the evolutionists’ strategy is to define “creationist theory” as “religion”. Evolutionists are trying to win the origins debate by mis-defining the keywords, and thereby avoid the scientific debate. I find that strategy boring and non-scientific, nonetheless it is a pervasive strategy.

Salvador wrote:

Also, as a matter of convention, I try to shy away from discussions of people’s religious beliefs. In all my interactions with Walter [ReMine], the topic of what he believes as far as the Bible has been avoided. The discussions have been strictly scientific, and out of respect for Walter, I leave Walter’s private beliefs about the Bible as something of a private nature.

Salvador is correct. Though I (like anyone else) have private views on religion, I strongly avoid such discussions within the origins debate, in order to focus our attention most clearly upon the science. Evolutionists (and religionists too) have strong self-serving motives for diverting the discussion away from science and into religion. To correct this defect, I vigilantly decline their attempts at diversion. This is explained in the Preface of my book (on page 2).

Macguy writes:

[Message Theory] differs from ID because [ReMine] attempts to find the intentions of the designer

Let me refine that. Message Theory does not attempt “to find the intentions of the designer”, at least that is not its central focus. Rather, Message Theory focuses on the data before us — data we can see; data that needs explanation — and attempts to explain that data scientifically. Message Theory did not begin with any assumptions or preconceptions about the designer’s intentions. Rather, Message Theory arose from merely following the data where it leads (without use of religious sources).

Let me make an analogy. We examine the death scene of Nicole Brown Simpson (of O-Jay Simpson fame). The data indicates this wasn’t a disease, or natural causes, or an accident, rather she was intentionally murdered by an intelligent being. Furthermore, by reading the data, we can tell some things about that intelligent being, such as mood (rage), physical height and strength (substantial), knowledge of weaponry (knifes), and some knowledge of forensics (by an attempt to conceal evidence). In this way the data can tell things about the designer. It is the same with Message Theory. The method is no more complicated than that. I did not do a clairvoyant mind-meld with the designer, rather I merely follow the data where it leads. The focus is on the data, not the designer.

Macguy writes:

… I’d encourage you to read Don Batten’s review [of The Biotic Message] where he outrightly criticizes ReMine for accepting too much of the big bang theory, and then he [Don Batten] brings the Bible into it!! I mean come on, the book has nothing in regards to the Bible but is purely scientifically based. The only times it mentions creationism is from a historical perspective and to discuss a flawed argument by them. The rest is from evolutionary scientist’s own mouths.

That is fully correct. My book avoids religious discussion, and focuses on statements from leading evolutionists.

Don Batten’s review (like many people in the young-earth movement today) was hyper-sensitive against the Big Bang theory, and thereby lost perspective on the matter. So far as my book is concerned, you could replace the words “Big Bang theory” with the words “finite-age Universe theory” and reach the same conclusions — but the wording, “Big Bang theory”, is less labored and more universally recognized. My book is not about Big Bang theory itself, rather my book recognizes Big Bang theory as the predominant scientific view, and uses that to show a new, interesting, scientifically testable argument in favor of the supernatural. Don Batten’s review diverted into religion and a hyper-sensitive charge against Big Bang Theory, rather than noticing my new argument in favor of the supernatural. This shows how the over-focus on religion — ironically — actually prevents creationists from seeing scientific arguments that work in their favor. I can give many examples of this phenomenon.

Macguy wrote:

All in all, the topic of labels is largely irrelevant for scientific endeavor in my view.

He is correct in that a real scientist will readily look past flimsy labels to seek the deeper scientific truths. However, I urge caution. Many great debates turn on the definition (or mis-definition) of key terms. I say evolutionists have mis-defined most (all?) keywords of the origins debate to their favor and to the disfavor of their opponents. Oftentimes in science, the (mis-)definition of keywords is something worth arguing loudly about.

Thank you for visiting and offering your comments.

To help the issue along, I have contacted Walter ReMine to give his thoughts on the issue.

Salvador

The definition of Biotic Message by Walter ReMine:

Life was reasonably designed for survival and for communicating a message that tells where life came from. The biotic message says, “Life is the product of a single designer — life was intentionally designed to resist all other interpretations of origin”.

This definition alone is enough to see that it clashes with ID. The scientific theory of ID makes absolutly no claims about the Source of the design. It could be one, it could be many; it’s outside of ID. The BM makes specifics that are not ID claims:
1. Life was designed for survival
2. Life was designed to look UNLIKE evolution
3. Life has a Single Designer

Like I said previously, these two claims are not ID claims. ID can be in harmony with evolution, and ID has no problems with polytheism, or panspermia.
So you have to decide if ID is against evolution or not, or if ID makes claims about the Designer or not. You can’t have it both ways, Sal

Using Mats’s reasoning, just because evolution doesn’t say anything in regards to God’s non-existence, it directly implies atheism. What necessarily even constitutes as a creationist theory in the first place? Really, these are all just labels but the differences in each theory should be noted. All in all, the topic of labels is largely irrelevant for scientific endeavor in my view.

The definition of Biotic Message by Walter ReMine:

Life was reasonably designed for survival and for communicating a message that tells where life came from. The biotic message says, “Life is the product of a single designer — life was intentionally designed to resist all other interpretations of origin”.

I have thus argued it can appropriately be called an ID theory. In my usage, most creationists theories involve:

1. Adam and Eve
2. The Great flood
3. The Book of Genesis

Yes, it is true, Walter argues for special creation, but given the common notions of “creationism”, I’m reluctant to affix that label. As far as I know Walter doesn’t shy away from the notion of special creation.

Also, as a matter of convention, I try to shy away from discussions of people’s religious beliefs. In all my interactions with Walter, the topic of what he believes as far as the Bible has been avoided. The discussions have been strictly scientific, and out of respect for Walter, I leave Walter’s private beliefs about the Bible as something of a private nature.

Having myself run into creationists and ID propoenents of varied religious and denominational affiliations, I find it productive to focus on scientific versus religious questions. I’m an Evangelical Presbyterian (PCA) raised in a Roman Catholic home. Some of the best creationists and ID-proponents I know are 7th Day Adventists, Methodists, Anglican, Episcopalians, Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses, Roman Catholics, Agnostics, Atheists (!), Muslims, and members of the Unification Church, etc…..

If doctrinal agreement had been a pre-requisite for corroboration, we creationists would be in serious trouble!