http://www.relevantmagazine.co.....38;t=10358

“I am terrible though, I keep wondering where all the energy and matter came from but I can’t quite get my head around the Big Bang either.”

I think these are the questions we all have trouble with. I used to have discussions with atheists in communities on AOL and elsewhere – long before I became aware of the ID theory, and these issues came up frequently. To ask what was present ‘before’ the big bang seems to be unrealistic if the big bang is the starting point for matter, motion and energy – and the big one, time.

All perspectives (atheism, theism, agnosticims, etc…) have to answer these. It has always been more reasonable to me that since there really cannot be a materialistic answer to these questions, that they are rather something beyond material. But making that assumption does not force the answers into the realm of the ‘supernatural’ as we understand the term. What we assume is supernatural may not be so, even though it is immaterial.

Reality is! – that’s the staggering realization. We haven’t discovered the ultimate reality that brings meaning to all other reality through science. We are reasonably forced into the conclusion that something that transcends our natural reality must be behind it, and that some other discipline apart from materialistic science will give us the answers. Even if we are materialists, we have to come to this conclusion when considering these ultimate questions.

I percieve that the problem with materialism is that it doesn’t look back far enough, and this is what forces the incomplete assumption that the answers are materialistic. Materialism does not solve the problem of infinite regresses. Theism solves the problem with an eternal first cause to every reality.

ID looks at natural evidences for something that may or may not be natural. This is why it is premature to make assumptions based on the natural evidences, on who or what that something is. All we have at this time are separate disciplines in philosophy and theology, and for some of us, these are sufficient in answering these questions. The materialists persist in looking for materialistic causes for reality without even considering if this is sufficient, despite the evidence we see all around us that it is not.

Tragic: I don’t think that’s boring at all! Thanks! Do you ever think about how God brought everything about or does that even make sense? I’m not sure it does! I am terrible though, I keep wondering where all the energy and matter came from but I can’t quite get my head around the Big Bang either.

Oh ok.

Of course I’m interested in who the designer is. It’s an interesting question at a personal level. Anyway you would have to ask individual ID theorists what they think on those issues because there’s a plurality of viewpoints. I myself am a boring, run-of-the-mill YEC, so that’s probably not what you are looking for.

“Upright: I am not disagreeing with you that DNA is unnecessary or improbable . . .”

I do believe we have failed to communicate. Perhaps the papers I linked to will perform better than I apparently have.

Absolutist: I guess I was granting ID it’s primary objective and asking . . . . what then? So many commentators here take ID as established so I assumed that there would be speculation and work past that. Because, it must be the case, with the kind of inquisitive minds I see exhibited here that lots and lots of people must be asking: When? Where? How? And maybe, just maybe, why. That’s not so bad is it? It sounds close to what some evolutionary psychologists do. And if they can then . . . why not? Why not guess, speculate, hypothesize, test, experiment, etc.

If this is not the forum to discuss those things then I do apologise. But I would really, really like to know where are the people who are asking those questions in the ID camp. And what are they doing to examine those questions. ‘Cause that’s gotta be the goal. That’s gotta be the most important issue to pursue. Who is the intelligent designer? I would really like to know that!! How do I get to that?

Ellazim,
Archaeologists benefit from Historians as Medical Examiners benefit from Detectives to answer the Who? When? How? Why? questions.

For the IDist, at the moment, while these are interesting, they are not the primary objective. Not to say they will not be explored.

Because “physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration” to quote the above theoretical biologist, others like Philosophers of Mind (who in my opinion should carry more clout in these debates) can provide great insights into these questions.

DNA is not chemically ordered. Instead, it is a symbol-system of encoded information where one thing represents another thing without having a mechanical/physical/chemical coordination between them.

There are no chemical or physical bonds along the linear axis of DNA (where the information is) that causes any one nucleotide to be followed by any other nucleotide. Each node along the DNA chain (where the nucleotides are attached to the backbone of the helix) has an equi-probable chance for any of the four nucleotides to bond.

The sequencing in DNA is chemo-dynamically inert. As far as the laws of the universe are concerned, DNA doesn’t even have to exist at all – yet it does exist – with no laws or physical properties to explain its sequence.

I provided you with three links to peer-reviewed research on the issue. Perhaps you could read them.

Archaeology is all about the designers. Isn’t ID all about the designer(s) too? Or, at least, aren’t you interested? I am.

I completely agree: there are some thing evolution doesn’t try to answer although other “materialist” scientists are trying to find plausible explanations. Is anyone in the ID camp trying to find plausible explanations for the who, when and how questions? ‘Cause I think they are really, really interesting and put the whole endeavour into a much more interesting light! I would love to have a discussion about those issues regarding the potential intelligent designers. When did (t)he(y) intervene? How? Why only sometimes? To me this is the best part of the ID paradigm. The really interesting part. And I’m not even asking “why”.

Again, I am really, really NOT trying to offend or catch anyone out; I just really want to know what people are thinking. I’m trying my best to be honest and civil and interested.