Science is nothing more than a systematic, self-correcting method of understanding HOW the world works around us. It simply explores the methods of how the world works.

Agreed

It does not ask WHY does the world work like it does. That is why (smirk) it is not a belief system. A belief system is left to metaphysics, religion, and/or philosophy.

I would agree.  It asks how but it does not ask why.


You claim to not be a creationist. You claim not to be a proponent of Intelligent Design.

Where did I not claim to be a proponent of Intelligent Design?  Maybe this is where part of the confusion is.  You see, creationism is intelligent design but intelligent design is NOT creationism.  Intelligent design may have little to do with creationism.  An IDist could claim that life on earth was created through guided transpermia.  It could be that the universe was created by Yoda.  Assemblism is something under ID but assemblism is not creationism.  Now, I am not going to believe in all of these things but, they are forms of ID.

If you are still listening to me, I wrote this post before I started reading the book "Signature in the Cell".  The book is not just a book, it is a project for me.  It is like taking a class in school.  I would have wrote this post a little bit differently now after I have read part of it.  It has at least a whopping 500 pages of meaty information.  It looks to me that Dr. Meyer has nuked neo-Darwinism in this book just from the complexity of the cell and the RNA world but he is too modest to say so. 

Actually I would agree that ID doesn't identify the creator.  ID points to a creator from various sources of evidence.  The various sources of evidence may have been discovered from the assistance of the telescope and the microscope and various disciplines and theories of science.

I would recommend going to www.signatureinthecell.com and watch the hour long video of Stephen Meyer giving this talk at the Heritage Foundation.

However, you have pulled up many classical arguments from ID proponents. Then you throw in some theory of your own that makes absolutely no sense. You make up some kind of references to meta-science/chaos/irrationality. I have no idea what that means and I don't think you have a concrete idea of what that means.

I have been accused of employing non-sequiturs before and maybe I could explain my ideas with more clearly but it is also the job of those who wish to debate me to question my belief system.  I will leave it to you to help me find the error of my ways.  And what if I don't have a concrete idea of what chaos or irrationality is?  I usually recognize irrationality when I see it.  (When you read the book you will start to see it too.)  If I had concrete knowledge base what irrationality and chaos is then I would be the ultimate psychologist or scientist and so my talents would be wasted here.  I have read parts of James Gleick's book on chaos.  It think it would help if there were some references for some illustrations in the book.

I see chaos everywhere in the natural world.  I see examples of it in outer space.  We see it under the microsope in some examples such as metallurgy.  We take it for granted but it is there.

One of the things that occurred to me is that the Linnaeus system of classification is a pretty much a reflection of fractal chaos.  It shows us that this is the case in the hierarchy of organisms.  I don't think scientists wish to quickly embrace this because it has a subtle implication of design.  I think they prefer some sort of random process when it comes to explaining how life evolved.

Obviously, this belief system is important to you. Obviously, Theory of Evolution causes some type of cognitive dissonance when held up to your belief system. So, I have to ask, what is your belief system and why is the methods (or hows) of biology so important to you?

If I can briefly explain it, my belief systems on life's origins are no less of a guided mix of chaos (order hidden within chaos) and at the most I am an assemblist.  I am pretty much of an assemblist but there is are mysteries of how life was assembled.

I have been wondering how well "molecular assemblism" would apply in explaining how life developed.  This of course is not science as it is defined by scientists.  But who gave us our current definition of science?  It was not handed down to us from the heavens.  It is based on common sense but it loses its honesty when it automatically disqualifies any supernatural causeations.  It would be honest if they stated that they really don't know and apparently some great scientists have.  But then again, I do think that science really doesn't know because it doesn't totally rule out the existence of big foot and the loch ness monster.

Aside from my faith, I am trying to understand the origins of life and how life in all of its wonderful complexities were made, a daunting task indeed.  I am attempting to apply honesty to my understanding.  I would help you to understand what proponents of ID are stating by questioning what they believe.

I believe that Signature in the Cell will elucidate that scientists have faith just as I have faith.  Their faith says that science will progress and fill in the gaps they accuse proponents of ID of holding.