Any Intelligent Designists in this forum?

[_Paladin_]

I posted this in the Creation/Evolution forum, and nearly got flamed out of my own thread, I was just wondering How many people hold to the Intelligent Design Theory.

 

[Dark Matter]

I mostly fall into the ID camp.

DM

 

[Vance]

I tend to agree with the ID guys on a number of grounds. I agree with them that the earth is billions of years old, that a process of the development of the species has been occuring over those billions of years (most accept this, I believe), and that YEC's are just plain wrong. And, most importantly, of course, I believe that there is an intelligent designer. I am not completely convinced that God created an evolutionary process that needs constant fine-tuning and intervention, but since the end result is the same on the outside, it is difficult to say. Lastly, I am not completely convinced of their anthropic approach.

I just don't think that God can be proven scientifically. It seems that He created everything in a way that still requires faith to believe in Him.

But, really, the fact that the leading ID guys say that YEC'ism is "silly" and misguided is interesting. :0)

 

[Remus]

Any Intelligent Designists in this forum?

It's hard to say. I can't seem to figure out what "ID" is. Can you give me a brief summery of the theory and perhaps a few people who best represent this position?

 

[Vance]

Most ID guys are scientists (or, in the case of Johnson, an attorney) who assert basically two things:

1. that the mechanics of the current theory of evolution could not work to create all the species without some supernatural intervention. They point to perceived deficiencies in the mechanics and conclude that it would take an intelligent designer to do X or Y in the process to make it work. It can't just all happen naturally. Most still accept that species developed over billions of years, and those that are real scientists (Behe, Denton, etc) even seem to accept the likelihood of a single common ancestor. Some like Johnson may lean more toward a progressive creation approach, but he is hard to pin down, from what I hear. None of them accept a young earth, that I have seen.

2. They also assert that the universe provides evidence that it could not have happened without an intelligent designer. Yes, they accept that it is billions of years old, and generally accept the conclusions of science regarding all the dating. What they point to are the odds that things could have happened just the way they did, and how precariously perfect it is for Man's existence.

This is just a general overview, so some ID guys may say different things, and some of the other guys will, I am sure, be able to refine this explanation to give a better idea where they are coming from.

The ID leading lights tend to be in a love/hate relationship with Creationists. Almost all are Christians (although Denton may be agnostic, but there is at least one occasion where he said the intelligent designer was the Christian God), and those like Johnson admit that their reason for promoting ID is to promote a Christian approach to origins. And they like the support they often get from Creationists. But they will often speak derisively of young earthism, and sites like AiG are a bit torn. They promote their books since they oppose evolution as a purely naturalistic phenomenon, but then they say they are disturbed by the fact that they are so close to being theistic evolutionists.

 

[_Paladin_]

First of all Happy Birthday,

I think the post above was a very good overview of ID.

You can get a lot of information about ID from Dembski's website, The Design Inference. And other good websites include
Access research network
International Society for Complexity Information and Design
The Discovery Institute
and the IDEA Center


You can find a good explaination of them in Dembski's article Gauging Intelligent Designs success, as well as some other relevant information about ID.

 

[Remus]

First of all Happy Birthday,

Thanks

I think the post above was a very good overview of ID.

You can get a lot of information about ID from Dembski's website, The Design Inference. And other good websites include
Access research network
International Society for Complexity Information and Design
The Discovery Institute
and the IDEA Center


You can find a good explaination of them in Dembski's article Gauging Intelligent Designs success, as well as some other relevant information about ID.

Thanks for the article and the links. I skimmed it a bit, but I think I got the idea. I'll try to read it more later. I've been to many of those websites and got the impression that common descent wasn't believed. Is this the case or did I not read enough?

Either way, I guess I'm not an ID'ist since I believe in a young earth

 

[Dark Matter]

I tend to agree with the ID guys on a number of grounds. I agree with them that the earth is billions of years old, that a process of the development of the species has been occuring over those billions of years (most accept this, I believe), and that YEC's are just plain wrong. I am not completely convinced that God created an evolutionary process that needs constant fine-tuning and intervention, but since the end result is the same on the outside, it is difficult to say. Lastly, I am not completely convinced of their anthropic approach.

I just don't think that God can be proven scientifically. It seems that He created everything in a way that still requires faith to believe in Him.

But, really, the fact that the leading ID guys say that YEC'ism is "silly" and misguided is interesting. :0)

No, not quite.
1. ID has nothing to do with the age of the earth.
2. There are YEC IDers.
3. It speaks nothing of the processual time of evolution

ID has to do with information. In short, Intelligent Design Theory has to do with understanding the limits of unintelligent causation and identifying the markers of intelligent causation. That's all.

Dark Matter

 

[Dark Matter]

Thanks

Thanks for the article and the links. I skimmed it a bit, but I think I got the idea. I'll try to read it more later. I've been to many of those websites and got the impression that common descent wasn't believed. Is this the case or did I not read enough?

Either way, I guess I'm not an ID'ist since I believe in a young earth

You can be young earth and an ID person. However, the connection between Young Earth Creationists and ID theory has been an egregious thorn in the side of the movement. Many YEC IDers do not identify themselves as such publically. Further, many YEC in the ID movement (I'd like to say most, but will say many) confess that their views as a YEC are solely theological without any scientific backing (see for example John Mark Reynold's comments in "Three Views on Creation".

ID stands alone and can be applied to any creationist agenda.

Dark Matter

 

[Vance]

I think common descent is where they get divided among themselves. I know Denton accepts it, and am pretty sure Behe does as well, but Dembski may not, and Johnson may not. Here is AiG's summary of ID:

• The major focus of their attacks is not evolution as such, but ‘chance’ evolution, i.e., the naturalistic philosophy (there is no supernatural; matter is all there is) behind it.
  
• Anyone opposed to naturalism could potentially qualify as an ally. This includes believers in evolution from microbe to man, so long as this belief were to involve some intelligent, planned interference sometime during the billions of years.
  
• They generally believe in, or are publicly neutral on, the millions and billions of years that evolutionists teach and accept.
  
• They either are comfortable with, or express no public view on, the corollary implication of long-age belief, namely that millions of years of death, disease and suffering took place before mankind appeared.
  
• Though the movement incorporates some believers in Genesis, including recent creation in six days and Noah’s global Flood, its approach would preclude public expression of support or concern for the Bible’s authority in such matters.
  
• They often go to great lengths to ensure that they are not seen as ‘coming at it from the Bible’.
  
  

 

[Vance]

Yes, I agree that the basic concept behind Intelligent Design is on the issue of the design. But almost all of the leading ID scientists point out the "flaws" in evolution as a solely natural phenomenon by discussing the process of evolutionary development over time and basically just assume the accepted time frames involved.

So, yes, there can definitely be YEC's who accept the ID principles of the need for a designer (anthropic) and the flaws in naturalistic evolution, and that is what AiG does. But if we identify the "ID movement" by its main proponents, the basic characteristics that even AiG points to in my post above generally hold true. The problem is that someone like Dembski can be very different than a guy like Denton.

There was a thread not to long ago with quotes from the leading ID guys basically rejecting young earthism. I think it was Johnson who called it either "silly" or "nonsense".

 

[Remus]

From what I understand, irreducible complexity plays a big part in ID. How does this fit in with those who subscribe to ‘ID’ism’ and common descent?

 

[Vance]

From what I understand, irreducible complexity plays a big part in ID. How does this fit in with those who subscribe to ‘ID’ism’ and common descent?

Those who accept common descent just say that God made it happen. That it could not happen naturally, but it DID happen, so God necessarily was involved in the process all along, making it work.

 

[Remus]

Those who accept common descent just say that God made it happen. That it could not happen naturally, but it DID happen, so God necessarily was involved in the process all along, making it work.

This doesn't sound right. _Paladin_, can you verify what Vance says?

 

[Vance]

I am basically thinking of Behe and Denton here, since they are the two top "real scientists" in the group, I believe. But the point is that those ID'ists who accept the common ancestor possibility do so in that manner.

 

[Vance]

Here is another summary by AiG:

"Where do they really stand? Behe has no problem with the idea of man descending from the slime, via fish—so long as it didn't happen ‘by chance.’

Johnson says it would not matter to him if God used evolution or not. He riles theistic evolutionists, because he exposes their surrender to Darwinian naturalism. Nevertheless, it seems he would be comfortable with a Behe-like ‘evolution by intelligent manipulation.’

Denton, who was an agnostic when he wrote his book, has since moved much closer to theistic evolution, not Genesis creation.

In the US a whole new ‘intelligent design’ movement (IDM) is forming around the likes of Johnson and Behe. Its main features:

• Not so much attacking evolution as chance evolution.
  
• No real concern with the authority of the Bible regarding such matters as the global Flood, the original perfection of creation, the six days, and so on.1
  
• Belief in billions of years of death and suffering before mankind appeared, which undermines the logic of the Gospel."
  
  

 

[Remus]

Actually I prefer to read what Behe or Denton wrote themselves. Thanks anyway though. I did find a few articles from Behe and I better understand his position. It is basically like you said.

 

[_Paladin_]

Actually from Denton's book "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" Denton seems to argue against Common descent. While I think most know that Behe himself holds to that, but here is Behe's Arn Homepage.

This doesn't sound right. _Paladin_, can you verify what Vance says?

While what he says is true for a number of IDs, I actually think that most don't beleive in common descent. For example that Article I linked earlier, "Gauging the Success of Intelligent Design" Made predictions that The IDEA center (Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness) repeats in their articles, being "rapid infusion of genetic information" or in other words, the forms appear rapidly, without the precursors. That seems to be what Dembski, Luskin, Meyer, and I would even argue Denton hold to.

As for the IDs that do beleive in common descent, Vance again gave a good summary.

 

[Vance]

One note on Denton. After his book Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, he wrote a second book in which he changes his position after further review, and has come to accept common descent. His focus now is on the anthropic evidence of design in this process and in the make-up of the universe. The book is called "Nature's Destiny". I had it, and began reading it, but then lost it. I was highly annoyed, and may buy another copy, but I think I got a good idea of where he is coming from.

Here is a quote which kinds of sums it up:

"The entire process of biological evolution from the origin of life to the emergence of man was somehow directed from the beginning."

 

[_Paladin_]

Sounds like I have another book to read then, I am curious as to how he would argue that. Either way, I would more likely agree with his earlier book, and the rest of the ID camp on common descent.