Intelligent Design

[Hicup]

Geo -

this begs (in the aristotelian sense) the question of the meaning of perfect. the universe is what it is, could not be otherwise - in fact otherwise has no meaning- and so the comment rings true... but is essentially meaningless

Complete and flawless, the universe cannot be improved.

the bacteria evolved, NOT the bacterium.... evolution operates at the group level. and the bacteria evolved as a matter of random mutation that proved advantageous. "random" here does not mean "without cause" but "without relation to result" - that is it did not mutate for the purpose of adaptation, the cause of its mutation was wholly unconnected with with the circumstance obliging adaptation OR the organism that might benefit from it.

uh huh.. continue..

well... "apparant"... but no, genetic mutation IS random. natural selection is not random but it IS based on, IS the result of random processes. there is no purpose in NS, there is no causative entity, it is a mechanism, not a mind.

importantly, the selection here is NOT a selecting on the part of the adapted organism, or even of the adaptive process, but on the part of the environment to which the organism adapts - the environment selects by providing what is needed to survive. and... individuals do not evolve, populations do.

Well a couple of things.

1. A mutation is random within the material at hand, and although limited, the process of mutation is still random.

2. Individuals do not transform or morph, true, but in a very real sense their offspring do.

ok, three things..

3. How can an environment select by providing what is needed to survive?

because, there is no intent

Or purpose? What is the intent of visible light, or more accurately, what other possible purpose could light have? As representative of the universe (We are the universe) you could say that light has no intent, or purpose, yet we have one, and only one purpose for light. By extension, the universe has a purpose for light. Starting to get the idea yet?

no "man behind the curtain", no "mind in the machine"; there is no will. adaptation is not the intent of mutation nor is evolution the intent of adaptation, any more than the bounce is the intent of the pear falling from the tree or, as much as it may seem a gift, is a rainbow the intent of sunlight passing through mist

But they all have a purpose, or usefulness. They are what they are and nothing else because we have defined them for what they are, and we need not provide any intent to be able to recognize the intelligence in their design.

to be sure. i have reservations about making much investment in any conclusions, as the best are likely to be only infinitesmally "right". But, we can (have and do) learn within our limited faculties from such questioning.

nice post.

Thanks, but it is important to realize that I am only thinking out loud. I can't know if these rationale's are correct, only that they are logical. I think that the pursuit of the truth in things is not the sole property of some scientific method that must inherently invalidate an idea simply because it is not immediately testable. Our own intelligence has shown us through reason that simply because we do not know how to test for something, that it must not exist. Conversely, not being able to falsify it should not diminish the path to a better understanding. I use the fish example, because a very long time ago someone on another forum was asked to articulate what another dimension would look like. It was a physics forum no less, and no one could do it. I thought about it for a while, a long while, and I came up with the idea that another dimension need not be something other than up, down, right, left, and distance/time, that it could very well be something as simple as a new plain of understanding, and the fish in the water was a way to visualize how this might manifest.

Tim-

 

[presluc]

Hello, just seeing what everyone's thoughts are on intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe were created by a highly sophisticated entity known as the intelligent designer, or intelligent agent. This intelligent designer then created the universe to it's own specifications and created life in it. It's a non-religious view on creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution and natural selection. What are your thoughts on intelligent design?

More Info: Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe in intelligent_design, at present I have faith in God I guess you could call God intelligent_desing, but a rose by any other name ect.
I do not believe in organized religion they often try to tell people how to think.
I'm sure no athiest would go around telling people how to think.
That would be like organized religion telling people to believe their way.

In my humble opinion people are human and thus are individual no two are exactly alike ,no two should be forced to thnk alike.

Respect is the key factor respect recieved should be respect given..

 

[presluc]

One might say there is no proof of anything really. However, what does exist is an enormous amount of scientific evidence that supports evolution.

What scientific evidence do you have to support your belief?

Not to intrude here but I have a question.

This is twice now you've brought up Science or scientific evidence.

So where is the scientific evidence that supports creation through science?

I mean you have soo much, surely you have proof by now.
However I must have missed the breaking news on how creation started.
Well, I have been listening to a lot of music today.

I do hope it's "new" scientific evidence.
Not "the old fossil in a rock routine?"
Perhaps the magic trick "a big explosion without energy or matter?"

Maybe "it's because the universe is moving", but everything is moving?

How about this one an oldie but a goodie "the universe has always just been there?"
However that's sounds an awful lot like organized religions routine God has always been.eace

 

[Geo Patric]

Complete and flawless, the universe cannot be improved.

no, of course not... i did not mean to suggest otherwise, only that the satement that the universe is perfect does not actually establish anything.. it is like saying the car is red because it is not any color other than red.... definitely true, but not a lot of meaning in it.

the process of mutation is still random.

yes, IF we qualify it as biologists do... that is as wholly unpredictable and as unrelated to effect. in our macro/newtonian world, there is no such thing as "random" in the sense of "without cause".

Individuals do not transform or morph, true, but in a very real sense their offspring do.

no, individuals CAN change form as offspring but that is not an evolution, that is merely a mutation. most mutationss fail prior to birth, most born fail before maturity. IF that mutation benefits the mutated organism to the extent that it competes to a degree sufficient enough to make it better able to compete within the extant environment, it will be carried on into future generations. at some point, those carrying this particular mutation will 'separate' (there a number ways that this can occur) from the non-mutated organisms and continue to develop along separate lines producing a new species... one that cannot reproduce reproducible young with the prior population.... only then has it evolved... and it happens to a population of organisms.

How can an environment select by providing what is needed to survive?

the use of 'selection' in this context is at least a little metaphorical. pardon me as i, again, fall into defining terms. we tend to use 'select' to indicate a deliberate act - "to select a shirt to wear", but Darwin did not mean it that way. organisms are 'naturally selected', selected by nature, by their environment for fit... like gravel falling into cracks are 'selected' for size and shape. the crack is not actually 'doing' it, it is a 'passive' selection... simply a matter of fit.

What is the intent of visible light . . . the universe has a purpose for light. Starting to get the idea yet?

i get the idea that you are pursuing, but i don't think the dominoes line up. I think this too is a projection of 'humaness' onto the universe - we think this way because it suits us to do so.

no, light has no purpose. most biologists would say that WE have no purpose either. we have function only subjectively (the universe will continue merrily on without us) and in the same passive sense that nature selects. to suggest that an element of a complex system is a trait of the system as a whole is erroneous. yes, it goes to the definition of the whole (the universe contains ice cream eaters) but not to the definition of the whole itself (the universe does not eat ice cream... it would must needs consume itself).

But they all have a purpose, or usefulness.

here we find an important distinction. we have to be careful with conflating "purpose" and "usefulness". purpose', particularly in this context, implies objectivity, that is, we are intended for some specific end. usefulness" adn for that to be there must be an 'intender'. usefulness, though, may entirely subjective. we can be useful to each other.

They are what they are and nothing else because we have defined them for what they are

no, i would disagree.. they are what they are TO US because of how we define them, but they are what they are existentially, in their essence regardless of us

we need not provide any intent to be able to recognize the intelligence in their design.

well, here you lose me. i cannot fathom intelligence without intent. intelligence is not a thing in itself, it is a trait OF something - a capacity, a capacity FOR and a capacity OF... obliging both a bearer and an intent.

Thanks, but it is important to realize that I am only thinking out loud.

me too, and having a great time.

I can't know if these rationale's are correct, only that they are logical. . . . .that it could very well be something as simple as a new plain of understanding, and the fish in the water was a way to visualize how this might manifest.

sure... and it is that capacity in you that drew me into the discourse, which i found to be not terribly interesting before. I will tell the truth... i LOVE the idea of ID. i just cannot see any reason to buy into it.

that notion of a core order... of an almost intelligence, by which i mean a level of ordering of which, as you suggest, human intellignece is a sort of extension, also fascinates me. If you have not read Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav, i would recommend it.

having a good time (as paul simon sings),
geo.

 

[Aderleth]

Intelligent design is creationism repacked with pseudo-scientific terminology to try and lend it credence for discussion in a science class. The goal is to push Christianity onto children in public schools. It is absolutely not a "non-religious" idea.

There is absolutely no scientific basis for creationism or intelligent design. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or a fool.

GTVA for life.

Edit: You probably disagree. Feel free to post the scientific evidence that favors ID and I'll be happy to explain to you why it's either not true or not scientific. I've heard ALL of the talkiing points.

Taking this a step further, it's not just that ID has no scientific basis for support, it's that ID is not science. Science, by definition, involves the testing of provable/disprovable hypothesis regarding materially existent phenomena. Since ID posits the existence of something that is literally outside of any material reality as we know it, it is grounded in the supernatural. Moreover, there is no way to test the validity of the theory. Consequently it simply does not meet any of the basic requirements of the scientific method. For more on this, I suggest reading the Dover School Board case. The judge goes into this issue in detail and his opinion is very well written. Here's a link for those who are interested:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

 

[Hicup]

I love Simon..

I intend to respond later, and I have to say that I too enjoy the discussion. You bring up some good counter points, and it is my sworn duty to oppose you..

Till later on..

Tim-

 

[VanceMack]

which is what poses the big problem. there is no evidence to suggest "a design construct" aside from our predisposition to see cause in order.

that predisposition itself, though, is not based on anything more than an NEED to understand. the need to understand and a sense of understanding both have played a far greater role in our history than understanding itself. satisfy the need well enough that our sense of understanding works and you are done. trouble is, our needs always eventuially exceed our sense.

disorder is dangerous - it is difficult to understand and we work hard to overcome it... by FINDING order when we can and fabricating it when we cannot find it. civilization is a fabricated order. THAT order CAN be created informs us that all order IS created. but the conclusion is not really well based. in fact, it is an illusion.


whew! boy howdy... that is some sorta sentence.... you must be a fan of James Joyce. I admire how well believers can accuse nonbelievers of relying on FAITH.

you might wanna rethink that assertion. you seem to have a difficulty in defining 'faith'. faith is not accepting as true those things which you have not personally qualfied as true, faith is accepting what NO ONE has qualifed as true... because it is not capable of being qualified as true.

what a COOL idea... can you suggest some titles (i wonder how they know???).

geo.

I'm very glad it amuses you...you can use a laugh or two. You are a 'scientist' right? Shoooooore you are. Dood...you are a muppet...a puppet. You regurgitate more sound bites and talking point and other assorted **** from global warming websites and wikipedia than an entire cagtalog of models purge Sunday's champagne brunch. You 'know' precisely the same thing any 1st year college student knows.

I personally see a value in actually studying the mechanisms by which the cosmos and all forms of life are created (ummm...not created...came into being). Dont label it ID...it matters not. Hell...name it the Scientific Discovery of the Big Bang" (of course...there was a monk somewhere involved with the origins of the 'big bang' theories...so...maybe something different). I'd love to see high school students learning more than the same tired **** that they taught 40 years ago. Who knows...some may actually be inspired to experiment more with planetary models and might actually contribute to the field someday.

 

[Geo Patric]

You are a 'scientist' right? Shoooooore you are.

noooooo.... Anthropology is my major, cultural anthopology (classical studies as a minor) which includes a deal of science but, unlike others in the field (including those far better accomplished, my being still a student) i do not consider cultural anthro to be a science. still... i enjoy sicence from a laymans perspective.

Dood...you are a muppet...a puppet. You regurgitate more sound bites and talking point and other assorted **** from global warming websites and wikipedia than an entire cagtalog of models purge Sunday's champagne brunch. You 'know' precisely the same thing any 1st year college student knows.

heheheh... muppet.... no, not first year... try again! and you are free to question my sources (wikipedia? where did i do that?) but that only really matters if you can show the questionable nature of the source or of the information gotten from that source. i usually cite my sources - if i fail, please feel free to note the ommission.

and hell, if you could tell me how to find one of those "science books" that can tell me what people a hundred years from now will be saying about us, i would really like to read one.

I personally see a value in actually studying . . .. Who knows...some may actually be inspired to experiment more with planetary models and might actually contribute to the field someday.

might could happen. and i like thinking about those things too, though i will allow that i only do so after reading what some educated person has to say on the matter... my own speculations amounting to little more than fantasy stories.

still, as i said to tim, i like the idea of ID. i just don't see much merit in it. i would oppose, virulently oppose its being taught as science in schools, but it would please me to be proven wrong.

geo.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Can anyone who believes in ID explain how think the genetics and heredity work? Do you deny that genetics mutations exist and are passed to new generations? How do handle obvious examples examples of natural selection like anti-biotic resistance? Why aren't there human fossils as old as dinosaur fossils if we all were put on earth at the same time?

This is a strange post, as you seem to be conflating Intelligent Design with Creationism. By definition ID is compatible with the theory of evolution and its mechanism of natural selection. The idea behind ID is that evolution happened exactly as described by scientists, and was guided by God in order to culminate in humanity.

 

[Paschendale]

This is a strange post, as you seem to be conflating Intelligent Design with Creationism. By definition ID is compatible with the theory of evolution and its mechanism of natural selection. The idea behind ID is that evolution happened exactly as described by scientists, and was guided by God in order to culminate in humanity.

How exactly do you test that hypothesis in a lab?

 

[Guy Incognito]

How exactly do you test that hypothesis in a lab?

It's not a scientific hypothesis, it's a theological or philosophical concept.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

This is a strange post, as you seem to be conflating Intelligent Design with Creationism. By definition ID is compatible with the theory of evolution and its mechanism of natural selection. The idea behind ID is that evolution happened exactly as described by scientists, and was guided by God in order to culminate in humanity.

Thats because Intelligent Design is the latest attempt by creationists to assert that ID is a compatible scientific theory, it is not.

But please, cite the evidence that supports creationism, of I'm sorry I mean Intelligent Design.

It's not a scientific hypothesis, it's a theological or philosophical concept.

Then its NOT a scientific theory in any sense, let alone compatible w/ evolution by natural selection.

 

[presluc]

How exactly do you test that hypothesis in a lab?

I guess the same way you would test the big bang theory in a lab.

I have read most of these post.
Some are interesting.

It is easy for people who do not have faith in God or do not believe in ID. to question faith believers or ID believers.

After all these can not be proven, personaly I never said I could prove the existence of God or ID.

I guess my question is can the athiest and nonbelievers proove their thoery of how the universe was created.
Perhaps they just believe that a theory is a working composition of the proof which holds the truth.
However, bottom line; no proof, just belief

Perhaps if faith believers or ID believers worked together with nonbelievers the truth might be easier to come up with.
Instead they challenge each others belief, as mine has been challenged many times.

Organized religion I can understand they want power
Intellectual scoentific writers who are against believers I understand they want more book sales.
However just average guys going to college or working for a liveing, average humans, this I do not understand.eace

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I guess the same way you would test the big bang theory in a lab.

I have read most of these post.
Some are interesting.

It is easy for people who do not have faith in God or do not believe in ID. to question faith believers or ID believers.

After all these can not be proven, personaly I never said I could prove the existence of God or ID.

I guess my question is can the athiest and nonbelievers proove their thoery of how the universe was created.
Perhaps they just believe that a theory is a working composition of the proof which holds the truth.
However, bottom line; no proof, just belief

Perhaps if faith believers or ID believers worked together with nonbelievers the truth might be easier to come up with.
Instead they challenge each others belief, as mine has been challenged many times.

Organized religion I can understand they want power
Intellectual scoentific writers who are against believers I understand they want more book sales.
However just average guys going to college or working for a liveing, average humans, this I do not understand.eace

You have to challenge a belief in order to determine if its true.

 

[marduc]

I guess my question is can the athiest and nonbelievers proove their thoery of how the universe was created.
Perhaps they just believe that a theory is a working composition of the proof which holds the truth.
However, bottom line; no proof, just belief

You will find most Atheists are agnostic atheists who can say "We don't know for sure" and thus do not need to prove anything. The big bang theory does have something going for it that intelligent design does not have though.. evidence that points that direction. If there is new evidence to the contrary of the big bang it would get tossed aside (or revisited/revised to account for the new evidence emerging)

We see no reason to assign a God (intelligent designer) to plug the "We don't know" hole, especially when there is no shred of evidence to give us reason to do so.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Thats because Intelligent Design is the latest attempt by creationists to assert that ID is a compatible scientific theory, it is not.

You must not be familiar with the Catholic Church's position on the matter. Faith and science do not always conflict, as much as you might like it to be so. Some people are just spoiling for a fight, I guess :roll:

Then its NOT a scientific theory in any sense, let alone compatible w/ evolution by natural selection.

It is not a scientific theory in any sense, it is a theological interpretation of the scientific theory of evolution. It is therefore very much compatible with the theory of evolution.

 

[ADG]

Intelligent design is a religious argument.
Another thing to point out: A lot of people confuse evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution does not deal with how life started or the origin of the universe.

Thank you! I find this is a common misconception as well.

 

[presluc]

You have to challenge a belief in order to determine if its true.

Very well, I challenge the scientific "theory" of creation.

 

[presluc]

You will find most Atheists are agnostic atheists who can say "We don't know for sure" and thus do not need to prove anything. The big bang theory does have something going for it that intelligent design does not have though.. evidence that points that direction. If there is new evidence to the contrary of the big bang it would get tossed aside (or revisited/revised to account for the new evidence emerging)

We see no reason to assign a God (intelligent designer) to plug the "We don't know" hole, especially when there is no shred of evidence to give us reason to do so.

Most faith believers have faith we don't know how God works.
We have faith in this, but to be possitive?
We do know this there must be a begining and end to all things
An Alpha and Omega, perhaps the end we will know not see or know but everything has to start somewhere, somehow, and time could be a factor in this.
For we as humans measure time according to our standards perhaps not all time is measured the same way.

The big bang theory is a explosion that takes place without energy or matter that's a lot of speculation.
That is unless natural law was conviently put in place after the big bang happened?

There is no shred of evedence to the contrary.
Oh, sure you have theories and speculation and conjector but real evedence, come on.

Question; Can scientific theory "plug the hole " as you say.
For in fact theory is an unproven fact, aka no proof, aka a guess.eace

 

[ADG]

There is no scientific proof for evolution, just speculation and theories. I believe science and the intricate functions of life were created by a creator. I also believe the intricate functions of life do not happen via evolution. The cellular functions are extremely complex and many are due to orderly cascades of genes and proteins being activated that lead to a product or response.

Are you refuting the scientific proof for evolution or just ignoring it. Challenging a scientific theory is the basis of the scientific process and is encouraged and essential. To challenge an evolutionary theory, and ask the person who developed the theory to provide proof, is how we determine a theory to be valid. Evolutionary theory has been challenged within the scientific community and has been proven. Countless times. Just like the theory of gravity, evolution is no longer a question, it is a fact.

 

[Guy Incognito]

The big bang theory is a explosion that takes place without energy or matter that's a lot of speculation.
That is unless natural law was conviently put in place after the big bang happened?

There is no shred of evedence to the contrary.
Oh, sure you have theories and speculation and conjector but real evedence, come on.

Well that's just it, nobody really knows what happened before the Big Bang, because there is no evidence for it. It's important to remember that the Big Bang theory is just a model of how the weight of evidence indicates the universe formed. Incidentally, there are competing models such as the Steady State theory, and there are problems with the Big Bang concept is itself and there has been some recent research in the area of dark matter that may actually contradict the Big Bang. It's interesting stuff.

 

[presluc]

Thank you! I find this is a common misconception as well.

I disagree, Intelligent Design is not a religous argument it is only an investigation into how the creation of the universe started.eace

 

[ADG]

I disagree, Intelligent Design is not a religous argument it is only an investigation into how the creation of the universe started.eace

Well, as a person who believes in Intelligent Design I would have to disagree with you. Intelligent Design is a philosophy, and an intriguing one at that, but it is not science. Before ID became fashionable, I was an adherant of teleological theory in evolution. Many scientists are, but none would use a teleological argument in an evolutionary paper.

ID takes the argument a bit farther than teleology, though. And while I believe in a higher power, and I believe that this higher power is working within us to guide evolution, this is my belief and I know I cannot prove it. Any attempt to blend the philosophy of ID with the science of evolution is either unaware of the difference between philisophical inquiry and the scientific method, or is being willfully dishonest.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Well, as a person who believes in Intelligent Design I would have to disagree with you. Intelligent Design is a philosophy, and an intriguing one at that, but it is not science. Before ID became fashionable, I was an adherant of teleological theory in evolution. Many scientists are, but none would use a teleological argument in an evolutionary paper.

ID takes the argument a bit farther than teleology, though. And while I believe in a higher power, and I believe that this higher power is working within us to guide evolution, this is my belief and I know I cannot prove it. Any attempt to blend the philosophy of ID with the science of evolution is either unaware of the difference between philisophical inquiry and the scientific method, or is being willfully dishonest.

Well said ADG.

 

[Geo Patric]

By definition ID is compatible with the theory of evolution and its mechanism of natural selection.

no, it is not. niot darwinist evolution anyway.

geo.