Let's stay under the dome of objectivism; it starts here ...

[Lee Bowman]

Greetings all,

First, a brief overview. I am a Biomedical Engineer, with recent studies in genetics, embryology, and anatomy and physiology. I also spend an hour or two on keyboards [Yamaha YPG-625], as I find that form of expression not only uplifting, but as well a welcome distraction from focusing on current news items [ISIS, Ebola, mass evacuations in Indonesia, et al]. I also blog quite a bit, not on news items per se, but on questions relating to origins, ID included.

I respect Stephen not just for his writings, but for his open mindedness to ID, not as an ideology, but as to it's evidentiary nature, and to a discernable degree. And to just what degree, one might ask? That of course is for Stephen to answer, or at least to ponder.

And as interviewees often iterate, "Thanks for having me."

 

[Dana Jean]

Hey Lee, welcome to the community.

 

[ghost19]

Howdy.

 

[Lee Bowman]

Howdy.

Salve to you too! Also, I've been following the ID discussion, to which I just replied to Leplady.

Intelligent design | Page 3 | The StephenKing.com Message Board

 

[blunthead]

Welcome to the SKMB! What does ID stand for as you refer to the initials?

 

[Lee Bowman]

Welcome to the SKMB! What does ID stand for as you refer to the initials?

'Intelligent Design' as a phrase which some equate with a movement to 'scientize' creationism. ID has more than one definition, the most popular being one devised by the Discovery Institute awhile back, to wit: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

To be a valid scientific pursuit, I see it as the biological study of biologic lineage progressions, as well as determinations as to the causations involved in this unfolding. Due to the fact that the 'actual' progressions, i.e. new species (and higher) formations being non-replicable (empirical confirmation by a repeat formation form a lower form), much of what has been determined as 'mechanistic' is conjectural.

So ID, or 'intelligent design', can denote either a religious belief (goddidit), by Darwin's theory of random mutations followed by natural selection, or by directed mechanistic processes to form complexity and novelty via a form of genetic modification, and of late, passed along by the embryo process of replication.

 

[Spideyman]

 

[blunthead]

'Intelligent Design' as a phrase which some equate with a movement to 'scientize' creationism. ID has more than one definition, the most popular being one devised by the Discovery Institute awhile back, to wit: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

To be a valid scientific pursuit, I see it as the biological study of biologic lineage progressions, as well as determinations as to the causations involved in this unfolding. Due to the fact that the 'actual' progressions, i.e. new species (and higher) formations being non-replicable (empirical confirmation by a repeat formation form a lower form), much of what has been determined as 'mechanistic' is conjectural.

So ID, or 'intelligent design', can denote either a religious belief (goddidit), by Darwin's theory of random mutations followed by natural selection, or by directed mechanistic processes to form complexity and novelty via a form of genetic modification, and of late, passed along by the embryo process of replication.

You lost me at 'Intelligent Design' as a phrase... Just kidding. Thanx for the definition. My personal belief, while deemed unimportant, is that all scientific matters are ultimately simpler than they appear, and that the world of Science eliminates common sense, though perhaps necessarily.

 

[Lee Bowman]

You lost me at 'Intelligent Design' as a phrase... Just kidding. Thanx for the definition. My personal belief, while deemed unimportant, is that all scientific matters are ultimately simpler than they appear, and that the world of Science eliminates common sense, though perhaps necessarily.

Science indeed often over-complicates a premise, or a derived conception based on data. But 'common sense' often reverts to a 'thus evolved' premise, which brushes away key details to a purported process. Exampe:

 

[ClaireB76]

Welcome to the board Lee! That was quite easily the most complex introductory thread I've read for a while!

 

[Lee Bowman]

Welcome to the board Lee! That was quite easily the most complex introductory thread I've read for a while!

I sometimes get carried away. Nothing, however, compared with a recent get together, where a guy at my table mentioned how his team had 'evolved' over the season, thus winning their regional. The subject then turned to evolutionary theory, much to the chagrin of my date, who told me later to never bring up that subject again in closed company. And I have to agree. At least here, as well as other written formats, one has the option of closing a page, or just briefly scanning it, yawning, and going to the frig for a beer or sandwich.

But for some, questions of origins will never fall by the wayside. Neurons firing ad nauseam perhaps?

 

[Neesy]

Greetings all,

First, a brief overview. I am a Biomedical Engineer, with recent studies in genetics, embryology, and anatomy and physiology. I also spend an hour or two on keyboards [Yamaha YPG-625], as I find that form of expression not only uplifting, but as well a welcome distraction from focusing on current news items [ISIS, Ebola, mass evacuations in Indonesia, et al]. I also blog quite a bit, not on news items per se, but on questions relating to origins, ID included.

I respect Stephen not just for his writings, but for his open mindedness to ID, not as an ideology, but as to it's evidentiary nature, and to a discernable degree. And to just what degree, one might ask? That of course is for Stephen to answer, or at least to ponder.

And as interviewees often iterate, "Thanks for having me."

Is Mr. Spock your cousin? (you have a slight resemblance to Leonard Nimoy)

Welcome to the SKMB Lee Bowman! ♥

 

[Lee Bowman]

Is Mr. Spock your cousin? (you have a slight resemblance to Leonard Nimoy)

... As someone once said:

"Spock is definitely one of my best friends. When I put on those ears, it’s not like just another day. When I become Spock, that day becomes something special."

Hey, for all we know, we may have a common ancestor.

 

[blunthead]

Science indeed often over-complicates a premise, or a derived conception based on data. But 'common sense' often reverts to a 'thus evolved' premise, which brushes away key details to a purported process. Exampe:

View attachment 5839

No. I mean Common Sense.

 

[mustangclaire]

Welcome!

 

[Houdini]

Welcome to SKMB Ian! (Pay no attention to that sign above. )

Houdini in Omaha

 

[kingzeppelin]

 

[GNTLGNT]

... As someone once said:

"Spock is definitely one of my best friends. When I put on those ears, it’s not like just another day. When I become Spock, that day becomes something special."

Hey, for all we know, we may have a common ancestor.

 

[Neesy]

... As someone once said:

"Spock is definitely one of my best friends. When I put on those ears, it’s not like just another day. When I become Spock, that day becomes something special."

Hey, for all we know, we may have a common ancestor.

He's kidding Lee Bowman !

Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor, not a chef!

 

[GNTLGNT]

He's kidding Lee Bowman !

Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor, not a chef!

...hence the smiley face I put beside the pic...