Intelligent Design

[Guy Incognito]

no, it is not. niot darwinist evolution anyway.

geo.

Sure it is. The whole idea is that evolution was intelligently guided. It's a philosophical proposition, not a scientific one. It does not conflict with science it any way, it overlays science.

 

[scourge99]

Time and time again we see Presluc post these same old arguments. Time and time again we must demonstrate that Presluc does not understand even the basics of the scientific method only to have him return in other threads repeating the same old refuted arguments.

Its important to note that Presluc STILL has not learned the quote system on this forum. If this is any indication of his mental capabilities then it comes as no surprise that he continually fails to grasp subjects far more complicated such as those within the domains of science and philosophy.

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

The big bang theory is supported. The big bang theory postulates:
1) that we would find uniform background radiation. When scientists looked for it they found it.
2) That most galaxies are moving away from one another. Confirmed by red shift.
3) That there should be an abundance of primordial elements.
4) That there will be a particular morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars.
5) That radiometric dating will be consistent with expected values
6) And so on and so forth.

How is ID supported? Note: it must be supported by FALSIFIABLE hypotheses like those above.

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.

Its also easy for people who objectively view the evidence of ID to reject it. Its also easy for people who objectively view the evidence for the big bang theory to accept it as supported by the evidence.

 

[Paschendale]

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.

Actually, it kinda does. Non biological systems function in a similar method to natural selection. Stars with more stable reactions survive for longer and are able to take in more material, and grow larger. Then when they burn out, their chemical makeup is able to spread farther and influence more new stars. The doctrine of efficacy >> proliferation is not limited only to biological organisms.

Now, the notion that god can be responsible for and guide evolution is actually a fine theological point. It's when it's used in an attempt to counter the scientific method that problems arise, or when it's used to push other theological tenants through.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

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

First of all, the Intelligent Design movement began as a response to the supreme court case Edwards v. Aguillard, and is religious in origin, at least that's what The Discovery Institute (the leading ID group) says.

From the first link

"Within two years ... a creationist textbook was produced: Of Pandas and People which attacked evolutionary biology without mentioning the identity of the supposed "intelligent designer". Drafts of the text used "creation" or "creator" before being changed to "intelligent design" or "designer" after the ... ruling."

The versions that came before and after are basically identical except they did a find and replace, there is even one version with the misprint "cdesign proponentsists".

In Kitzmiller v. dover a judge (a Christian, strict constructionist, who ran for congress as a Republican, and who was appointed by George W. Bush) ruled in part that:

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

The ruling is quite a good read.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

Sure it is. The whole idea is that evolution was intelligently guided. It's a philosophical proposition, not a scientific one. It does not conflict with science it any way, it overlays science.

"Intelligent Design" doesn't just mean "guided by an intelligence". Theistic evolution isn't compatible with Intelligent Design.

 

[Guy Incognito]

"Intelligent Design" doesn't just mean "guided by an intelligence". Theistic evolution isn't compatible with Intelligent Design.

That isn't accurate. Theistic evolution and intelligent design are one and the same, "intelligent design" is what theistic evolution proposes. If some people have attempted to rebrand creationism as intelligent design, that does not change the fact that they are misrepresenting a philosophical concept as science.

On the other hand, there does seem to be something to what you're saying. Perhaps I shouldn't call what I'm talking about intelligent design, lest we get confused. Nevertheless, a lot of proponents of theistic evolution do use the term intelligent design this way.

 

[tryreading]

Not "the old fossil in a rock routine?"

Is that like an Abbot and Costello routine? Except, the fossil routine would involve millions of scientists and their peers keeping the joke amongst themselves, their (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) co-conspirators, for centuries. Somehow, only they, and of course you, get it...

 

[whysoserious]

Intelligent design is not a theory as it is based on zero scientific evidence. In fact, it's only real reason for existence is a gap in scientific evidence and a Unified Field Theory. Intelligent design, like every other question in the past, is simply the uneducated person's reasoning for how we got here. Everything has slowly been explained away and now the only thing left to fall back on is, "Look at everything, it's so complicated it has to be created by some intelligent being!".

If I had to sum it up, I'd say intelligent design is the result of the type of pseudo-science in which the theory is really developed before the research is put in. It was created because people were searching for scientific answers and realized that there must be a God. it was created because people who believe in God are finding less ground to stand on.

Science doesn't disprove God. Their findings can continue to explain things and it can still be said, "Well that's because God made it that way". What is confusing to me is the hatred of science instead of the embrace of it.

*Edit to add:

I do not necessarily mean uneducated as a reference to anyone's book smarts, but rather all of our lack of understanding about exactly how we got here, how the universe works, and why it exists to begin with. We are all uneducated in that respect, some more than others, and intelligent design is the easy way of explaining it all.

 

[maquiscat]

One has to start somewhere, even if one doesn't have the means to detect or test the theory. The next step becomes to try to develop the means necessary to detect and measure what you want. This could range from the ID creator to trying to detect and measure the "soul" or the "mind" (as opposed to the activity of the brain).

At one point, someone thought that a rock could slowly kill, just by sitting next to someone. It took a while to create equipment that could measure radiation and from that a whole new field of science was born. The more nebulous and intangible something is the less it will be believe when someone finally concepts is. Radiation, even distant space phenomenon are good examples. The science was in on a flat earth until Magellan proved it otherwise.

 

[Ben K.]

What is meant by God guiding evolution yet natural selection working independently, philosophically? Is it a deistic belief that god fine tuned the universe to allow the probabilities to work out as they have/ sparked the first life that biological evolution acted upon, or is there something more persistently interfering at work as implied by the term "designer"? Or perhaps it means everything has happened because it was intended to happen, everything we discover via scientific enquiry is what God did and so holds more water than anything claimed in a holy book (Work of God > Word of God).

ID is a nebulous concept and that some posters may run with a particular definition shouldn't surprise people who subscribe to another version of it. The "teach the controversy in science class" crowd has hijacked the philosophy and that's what is considered dangerous.

 

[Guy Incognito]

If I had to sum it up, I'd say intelligent design is the result of the type of pseudo-science in which the theory is really developed before the research is put in. It was created because people were searching for scientific answers and realized that there must be a God. it was created because people who believe in God are finding less ground to stand on.

I think this is essentially a straw man. Not one of your making, but on a mass scale. Regardless of a handful of creationists who dress up their ideas as science, there aren't any scientific claims contained within the concept of intelligent design. I think a lot of people who have contempt for religion like to relive the days of the Scopes monkey trial, but there is really only a fringe minority that want to teach religion in a science classrom.

As for people who do want to teach Intelligent Design, why not allow it, in a philosophy class? Or even a philosophy of science class? Philosophy of science is a woefully neglected area, yet is vital to the proper application of the scientific method. Few people, even among scientists, have any awareness of philosophy of science these days, when it really should be a mandatory part of education.

 

[Ben K.]

I think this is essentially a straw man. Not one of your making, but on a mass scale. Regardless of a handful of creationists who dress up their ideas as science, there aren't any scientific claims contained within the concept of intelligent design. I think a lot of people who have contempt for religion like to relive the days of the Scopes monkey trial, but there is really only a fringe minority that want to teach religion in a science classrom.

As for people who do want to teach Intelligent Design, why not allow it, in a philosophy class? Or even a philosophy of science class? Philosophy of science is a woefully neglected area, yet is vital to the proper application of the scientific method. Few people, even among scientists, have any awareness of philosophy of science these days, when it really should be a mandatory part of education.

True. Three years into my genetics degree I finally got the option to do a module on this, but it wasn't even mandatory.

 

[whysoserious]

I think this is essentially a straw man. Not one of your making, but on a mass scale. Regardless of a handful of creationists who dress up their ideas as science, there aren't any scientific claims contained within the concept of intelligent design. I think a lot of people who have contempt for religion like to relive the days of the Scopes monkey trial, but there is really only a fringe minority that want to teach religion in a science classrom.

As for people who do want to teach Intelligent Design, why not allow it, in a philosophy class? Or even a philosophy of science class? Philosophy of science is a woefully neglected area, yet is vital to the proper application of the scientific method. Few people, even among scientists, have any awareness of philosophy of science these days, when it really should be a mandatory part of education.

Well that's completely different. That's where it belongs and why not? I think that would be a great class to take. I am just strongly against the evangelical movement in this country right now that seems to want to drag this country back into 1950.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I am just strongly against the evangelical movement in this country right now that seems to want to drag this country back into 1950.

Well right, but they are so out there, and so small a number of people, that they are hardly worth considering. And when you attack religion generally in a scattershot way, as if all religious people want to go back to the Salem witch trials, people end up polarizing the issue into a "science vs. religion" sort of way that is not helpful. Even among the Evangelical movement, I would venture to say that most would agree that ID belongs in philosophy or religious studies class, not science class. But when is anybody making serious proposals to actually include philosophy or religious studies in the cirricula of our schools?

 

[Geo Patric]

Sure it is. The whole idea is that evolution was intelligently guided. It's a philosophical proposition, not a scientific one. It does not conflict with science it any way, it overlays science.

The whole idea for people who fear ridicule at being called 'creationsits', perhaps, but not for darwinists. the whole idea for darinists is that natural selection is an unguided process, an undirected process with on objective. darwin was not a philosopher and evolution is not philosophy. that ID, as it is understood by some folks, does not dispute the facts of evolution does not make it compatible with evolution.

ID is NOT compatible with Natural Selection, not even according to Intelligent Design proponents:

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

- intelligentdesign.org

there is that "undirected process" - THAT is Natural Selection.

Intelligent design is purely scientific, based on facts and theories; ID does not offer proof or evidence to God as creator, which provides one way it differs from creationism. Creationism is a belief. Intelligent design is a theory, and yes it is testable. Beliefs are not necessarily testable.

that life and therefore the universe did not arise by chance: an intelligent entity designed and created it. ID is about the facts that negate Darwin’s theory of evolution.

- arbiteronline

and so on. call it 'science' if you like, but it is not compatible with darwinist natural selection.

geo.

 

[presluc]

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.

Bottom line, The creation of the universe investigation.

For as I have said I have faith in God is the intelligent design that created the universe.
How did God do this?

That is an interogotive sentence, just like the theories of scientific creation of the universe.

Therefore putting philosophy aside ,how you feel aside, my faith aside for that matter, the creation of the universe is still under investigation.

Now as for me I'll keep my faith that the creation of the universe with evolution had help getting started, I do not ask nor demand that everybody or anybody think or have the same faith as I.
As for proof alas I have none.
However, nobody else does either.
As for ID, perhaps God is another name for ID.

So the age old question still remains.
How did it all start??
Still under investigation.eace

 

[presluc]

Time and time again we see Presluc post these same old arguments. Time and time again we must demonstrate that Presluc does not understand even the basics of the scientific method only to have him return in other threads repeating the same old refuted arguments.

Its important to note that Presluc STILL has not learned the quote system on this forum. If this is any indication of his mental capabilities then it comes as no surprise that he continually fails to grasp subjects far more complicated such as those within the domains of science and philosophy.


The big bang theory is supported. The big bang theory postulates:
1) that we would find uniform background radiation. When scientists looked for it they found it.
2) That most galaxies are moving away from one another. Confirmed by red shift.
3) That there should be an abundance of primordial elements.
4) That there will be a particular morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars.
5) That radiometric dating will be consistent with expected values
6) And so on and so forth.

How is ID supported? Note: it must be supported by FALSIFIABLE hypotheses like those above.



Its also easy for people who objectively view the evidence of ID to reject it. Its also easy for people who objectively view the evidence for the big bang theory to accept it as supported by the evidence.

This is too easy, look up theory in the dictionary, if it says FACT, I will listen.
Uniform radiation from where?
Didn't know red shift was called moving what do you call walking gravity shift? lol
"Should be", a nice phrase like America "should be" in contact with alien life forms.
That there will be particulasr morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars.
First it's sounds like you are decribing the universe there but it was already there.
Then it's the phrase "that there will be" sounds an awful lot like the first chapter of the bible, "which is questionable from faith believers", after all man wrote the bible, man makes mistakes.
With expected values, whose expected values?

You confuse me sir , with organized religion.
I have no proof of support,neither do I have iron clad proof of my faith, but I have my faith, for me that is enough.

As for your proof time and again nonbelievers have responded to me with so called "proof" which turned out to be theories speculation, and conjector, in short THEY GUESS THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED , THEY THEOREIZ THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED, OR THIS MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED.

Galaxies are moveing away from one another, maybe they don't want to be too close to one another.
The big bang theory emphasis on the word theory is supported, by what?
That an explosion can happen without energy and matter???
That thee should be an abundance of primordial elements.
Could be should be would be, and even if there were so what?
The radiometreic dating will be consistent with expected values.
Radiometric dating according to whose time? and who's values?eace

 

[presluc]

:3oops:

Is that like an Abbot and Costello routine? Except, the fossil routine would involve millions of scientists and their peers keeping the joke amongst themselves, their (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) co-conspirators, for centuries. Somehow, only they, and of course you, get it...

No more like the old shell game.
A bunch of scientist saying I have proof how the universe was created under one of these shells, of course you pick a shell and nothing is there, and the scoentist says try again for the price of my new book ect.eace

 

[tryreading]

:3oops:

No more like the old shell game.
A bunch of scientist saying I have proof how the universe was created under one of these shells, of course you pick a shell and nothing is there, and the scoentist says try again for the price of my new book ect.eace

Show me where any scientist has said 'I have proof this is how the universe was created.'

 

[Dezaad]

I believe in intelligent design. I believe that there was a designer and that everything is part of creation. I don't believe in the theory of evolution nor do I believe everything happened by random chance apart from a designer or intelligent being. It's illogical to believe everything came from nothing for no reason.

It is just as illogical that god came from nothing. Alternatively, if it is illogical to believe the universe always existed, it is illogical to believe god always existed. Why should god get special treatment?

 

[Dezaad]

This is too easy, look up theory in the dictionary, if it says FACT, I will listen.
Uniform radiation from where?
Didn't know red shift was called moving what do you call walking gravity shift? lol
"Should be", a nice phrase like America "should be" in contact with alien life forms.
That there will be particulasr morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars.
First it's sounds like you are decribing the universe there but it was already there.
Then it's the phrase "that there will be" sounds an awful lot like the first chapter of the bible, "which is questionable from faith believers", after all man wrote the bible, man makes mistakes.
With expected values, whose expected values?

You confuse me sir , with organized religion.
I have no proof of support,neither do I have iron clad proof of my faith, but I have my faith, for me that is enough.

As for your proof time and again nonbelievers have responded to me with so called "proof" which turned out to be theories speculation, and conjector, in short THEY GUESS THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED , THEY THEOREIZ THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED, OR THIS MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED.

Galaxies are moveing away from one another, maybe they don't want to be too close to one another.
The big bang theory emphasis on the word theory is supported, by what?
That an explosion can happen without energy and matter???
That thee should be an abundance of primordial elements.
Could be should be would be, and even if there were so what?
The radiometreic dating will be consistent with expected values.
Radiometric dating according to whose time? and who's values?eace

O M G, seriously? You have just demonstrated almost complete ignorance on several scientific matters. It is ok if you understand them and then disagree, but to demonstrate that you don't have a clue, and then disagree with what you obviously don't understand ... is truly laughable.

 

[reefedjib]

It is just as illogical that god came from nothing. Alternatively, if it is illogical to believe the universe always existed, it is illogical to believe god always existed. Why should god get special treatment?

This is a logical fallacy. The universe is governed by creation and decay, therefore it is perfectly logical that the universe has a beginning, and an end. God is not governed by creation and decay, and has no beginning and no end. Therefore, God has always existed and will always exist. God exists outside of space and time.

 

[Dezaad]

This is a logical fallacy. The universe is governed by creation and decay, therefore it is perfectly logical that the universe has a beginning, and an end. God is not governed by creation and decay, and has no beginning and no end. Therefore, God has always existed and will always exist. God exists outside of space and time.

It MIGHT be logical fallacy, but you have not demonstrated that it is.

How did you come to the conclusion that the universe was subject to creation? I do not accept this, so convince me.

What do you mean by 'decay', and how did you come to the conclusion that the universe was subject to it?

How did you come to the conclusion that god was not subject to creation? How did you come to the conclusion that god is not subject to decay?

Why couldn't the conditions that eventually triggered the universe have always existed just as easily as god could have?

I still see no evidence that god should be given special treatment relative to a naturalistic explanation.

 

[reefedjib]

It MIGHT be logical fallacy, but you have not demonstrated that it is.

How did you come to the conclusion that the universe was subject to creation? I do not accept this, so convince me.

What do you mean by 'decay', and how did you come to the conclusion that the universe was subject to it?

How did you come to the conclusion that god was not subject to creation? How did you come to the conclusion that god is not subject to decay?

Why couldn't the conditions that eventually triggered the universe have always existed just as easily as god could have?

I still see no evidence that god should be given special treatment relative to a naturalistic explanation.

All "natural" phenomenon have a beginning and an end. Therefore, the universe has a beginning and an end. God, by definition, has no beginning and no end. You will find no evidence of this since evidence is of "natural" nature and God is supernatural. There is no evidence of God.

 

[Redress]

Moderator's Warning:

Scourge99 is thread banned