Scholarly Defense of Intelligent Design

[sammyhales]

I am writing a paper in college about Intelligent Design. It has to be a position paper for both sides, and I can't remember the best arguments for Intelligent Design. What I'm looking for the most is a scholarly defense of it, but I'm having trouble finding them in peer-reviewd scholarly sources. I'm thinking philosophy is my best bet, but they tend to argue against ID as much as for ID. Any help? Anyone want to practice their apologetics and see if you can support it in a scholarly setting?

 

[AlexBP]

Probably the best-known book on the topic is The Mind of God, by Paul Davies, a physics professor at the University of Adelaide. It's intended to be a comprehensive look at what modern physics teaches that's relevant to philosophical questions and addresses a lot of topics, including the origins of the universe, multiverses and parallel universes, and computability and the possibility of our universe being a simulation. However, there are several chapters on the topic of evidence for design in the laws of the universe. It is written for a popular audience rather than for academic rigor, but Davies assembles the arguments from real science with ample references.

Another common book is Just Six Numbers, by Martin Reese, an astronomer from Cambridge. It focuses on the argument from fine-tuning, that physical constants would have to be exactly the values they are in order for life to exist, and yet from all we know of the laws of physics they could have been different. Reese himself does not personally advocate for intelligent design but the book extensively lays the foundations for the argument from fine-tuning.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Anthropic Principle.
First Cause.
Irreducible Complexity.

Those are pretty much the hallmarks of ID, particularly irreducible complexity. Of course, all of them have horrible problems because ID as a whole is pseudoscience, but that's not really the point of what you're asking for.

 

[Jade Margery]

...I'm having trouble finding them in peer-reviewd scholarly sources....

Imagine that.

 

[sammyhales]

Probably the best-known book on the topic is "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies...

Wow. That guy is the real deal. Very smart, has been involved in research all over the world, and generates interest from the best and brightest. Thanks much.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Anthropic Principle.
First Cause.
Irreducible Complexity.

How is the anthropic principle being applied to ID?

 

[Davian]

Have you watched NOVA's Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial yet?

"In this two-hour special, NOVA captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in one of the latest battles over teaching evolution in public schools. Featuring trial reenactments based on court transcripts and interviews with key participants, including expert scientists and Dover parents, teachers, and town officials, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" follows the celebrated federal case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District."

Link (link to video is on this page)

Transcripts

 

[KCfromNC]

Anthropic Principle.
First Cause.
Irreducible Complexity.

Those are pretty much the hallmarks of ID, particularly irreducible complexity. Of course, all of them have horrible problems because ID as a whole is pseudoscience, but that's not really the point of what you're asking for.

Don't forget various arguments from ignorance - e.g. I can't imagine how X evolved so therefore god did it.

But looking at creationism as an intellectual pursuit misses the point. It's politics dressed up in sciencey-sounding words. You're not going to find much more than ad hoc rationalizations there because evidence and logic isn't the point. The point is gathering believers to support the political goals of Christian dominionists and you don't do that by publishing real science. You can't discuss creationism while ignoring this ... it simply doesn't make sense otherwise.

 

[jpcedotal]

Or

Jesus of the Gospels...you know, the one who turned water into wine instantly, who raised a man from being dead for a half a week, the one who said he could make sons of Jacob out of stone is the same one who created life in Genesis...in six real days (really five, because nothing was created on day two).

 

[jpcedotal]

Genesis order:
earth first, sun moon and stars later
fruit trees first, marine creatures later
whales first, land animals later
birds first, reptiles later

Everything created in Genesis is backwards according to evolution. So from this, either an intelligent being knew what the argument was going to be and purposely created life in an order that could not be stepping stones of evolution OR evolution's real intent is to discredit the Genesis story as its number one priority.

I mean, this intelligent being made it so one had to have faith in one or the other but not both. Even evolutionist Christians who simply say a Genesis day was thousands or millions of years must discredit the Genesis order in order to believe in evolution.

This was intentional by an intelligent Creator.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Genesis order:
earth first, sun moon and stars later
fruit trees first, marine creatures later
whales first, land animals later
birds first, reptiles later

Everything created in Genesis is backwards according to evolution. So from this, either an intelligent being knew what the argument was going to be and purposely created life in an order that could not be stepping stones of evolution OR evolution's real intent is to discredit the Genesis story as its number one priority.

I mean, this intelligent being made it so one had to have faith in one or the other but not both. Even evolutionist Christians who simply say a Genesis day was thousands or millions of years must discredit the Genesis order in order to believe in evolution.

This was intentional by an intelligent Creator.

Hmmmm maybe that account is not literal, like how the global flood isn't literal

 

[Dark_Lite]

How is the anthropic principle being applied to ID?

"The universe is perfectly tuned for us. Therefore, there we must have been designed."

 

[jpcedotal]

Hmmmm maybe that account is not literal, like how the global flood isn't literal

Well, oddly enough...this had to do with the second day of Creation, when water was held above the earth as well as on and under the land. Again, God knew we as humans were going to screw up royally and he was going to have to once again return the earth to the time before the filament and cover the earth with water.

So the first time it rained..it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and water came up from the earth as well and the covered the entire whole surface of the earth.

So..I do take the Flood literally.

 

[Insane_Duck]

"The universe is perfectly tuned for us. Therefore, there we must have been designed."

That would be an argument from fine tuning. The anthropic principle is an answer to the ID argument.

Anthropic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dazed]

The best and only argument for ID is that the universe is too complex so there must be a God.

At the risk of plagiarism, you might want to read up "The God Delusion" written by Richard Dawkins. There's a section where he discussed ID. He would bring up an ID argument and promptly shred it to pieces.

 

[Insane_Duck]

This was intentional by an intelligent Creator.

I'm sure.

 

[jpcedotal]

I'm sure.

I don't expect u to believe. Christ must first come into your life and until He does it really doesn't matter what "we" (a Christian and a non-Christian) agree on...except that we both are sinners and the penalty of sin is death.

 

[Insane_Duck]

I don't expect u to believe. Christ must first come into your life and until He does it really doesn't matter what "we" (a Christian and a non-Christian) agree on...except that we both are sinners and the penalty of sin is death.

I wasn't aware we agreed on that. Thank you for informing me.

 

[jpcedotal]

I wasn't aware we agreed on that. Thank you for informing me.

naw, I was saying until we both agree on what u highlighted, anything else we agree on is meaningless...at least for you it is.

 

[Davian]

Genesis order:
earth first, sun moon and stars later
fruit trees first, marine creatures later
whales first, land animals later
birds first, reptiles later

Everything created in Genesis is backwards according to evolution. So from this, either an intelligent being knew what the argument was going to be and purposely created life in an order that could not be stepping stones of evolution OR evolution's real intent is to discredit the Genesis story as its number one priority.

I mean, this intelligent being made it so one had to have faith in one or the other but not both. Even evolutionist Christians who simply say a Genesis day was thousands or millions of years must discredit the Genesis order in order to believe in evolution.

This was intentional by an intelligent Creator.

Or they are just stories in a book, conflicting stories at that? And as you say, they conflict with the evidence on hand. Deception, or just written long before we had our current level of knowledge? I go with the latter.

The Theory of Evolution is not intended to discredit any bible stories, but they will be brushed aside if they add no value to explaining the natural world.

And the topic is ID, not bible stories.