How does one define intellligent design?

[anon5354]

I seemed to be confuse by the concept of "intelligent" design. How do we say something is intelligently designed? In order to classify something as "intelligently" designed, we must first have something that is "non-intelligently" designed. But by the definition of (divine) "intelligent" design, everything must be designed, from a star to a piece of rock.

Isn't this a circular argument?

 

[ej]

You could say so, I guess.

Even if one does not believe in a superior being, one could describe an 'intelligent' force selecting good features, and hence propagating evolution.

The argument is confused slightly when you read the thread called 'funny question.' There have been comments made (by intelligent members ) that vestigial organs are 'bad design' whilst it seems clear to me that these are a sign of evolution in action.

We (humans) are not the ultimate pinnacle of evolution. And man cannot improve upon what he is given, hence evolution / God is more intelligent than man.

 

[armels]

My thoughts on this are:

1-artists often throw paints about to create, but this is not intellient design. It is not created by design or plan, but by chance. The creator had no preconcieved notion as to how it would turn out.

2-Evolution is NOT intelligent design either as it is not directed nor accomplished by a plan.
3-You are right in being confused by the "intelligent" part of that pharse. Design supposes intelligence of some sort or other. Design can only be accomplished by intelligence.
Thanks for listening.

 

[RFHendrix]

Intelligent Design is the scientific response to naturalism. Materialism or naturalism assumes that physical matter is the only reality in the universe and that everything else, including feeling, mind, thought and will can be explained in terms of physical laws. Intelligent Design (ID) on the other hand claims that all things cannot be explained by the laws of nature. The science behind intelligent design seeks evidence that may support either view. ID would more correctly be called simply; science, were it not for the extreme bias toward materialism currently in scientific theories, especially the theory of evolution.

One would think that scientists would follow evidence to wherever it leads. The facts and evidence should be evaluated logically, one would think, and then presented to the public with the benefit of the expert opinions. Unfortunately the facts and evidence are now required to be spun about or made to fit with a materialistic explanation before the public is considered worthy to digest the research. This is simply dishonest. If scientific research leads to Intelligent Design is a scientist allowed to tell us? Can one publish a thesis in a scientific journal that indicates intelligent design? Too often the answers to those questions are no. Intelligent Design is simply science without the requirement to mislead in the direction of naturalism.

http://www.blindatheist.com/linkbooks.htm

 

[Cantuar]

Intelligent Design (ID) on the other hand claims that all things cannot be explained by the laws of nature. The science behind intelligent design seeks evidence that may support either view. ID would more correctly be called simply; science, were it not for the extreme bias toward materialism currently in scientific theories, especially the theory of evolution.

Science is the method by which observed phenomena are explained on the basis of the laws of nature. Once you decide that there are things that can't be explained by the laws of nature and are trying to investigate them, you're no longer doing science. Intelligent design as applied to evolution could very well be a purely natural process, if the intelligent designer were part of the universe and coustrained by the laws of nature. The fact that ID proponents are so hung up on trying to defeat materialism shows that they've already decided what sort of designer they want. They want a supernatural agent that isn't constrained by the laws of nature because the ID movement is fundamentally a cultural one, which wants to put the Christian God in a non-negotiable position in the centre of everything, not just theology.

Unfortunately the facts and evidence are now required to be spun about or made to fit with a materialistic explanation before the public is considered worthy to digest the research.

There's no "now" about it. That's how the scientific method has worked for hundreds of years. The scientific method couldn't work if non-natural processes were possible explanations, because if a process isn't constrained by the laws of nature, it can't be tested by the scientific method.

If scientific research leads to Intelligent Design is a scientist allowed to tell us?

Allowed? Nobody's stopping him. However, no actual scientific work seems to be being done in this area. And William Dembski is on record as saying that the research aspect of the Discovery Institute's Center for [the Renewal of] Science and Culture is no longer a priority, but that getting the message out to the public and getting ID into schools is the priority. That's exactly backwards from how real science works.

Intelligent Design is simply science without the requirement to mislead in the direction of naturalism.

So as long as this Intelligent Designer isn't bound by the laws of nature, how about explaining how His actions can be studied by the scientific method as presently set up, which depend on consistency in the natural world.

 

[Jet Black]

We (humans) are not the ultimate pinnacle of evolution. And man cannot improve upon what he is given, hence evolution / God is more intelligent than man.

we can improve on what we are given, and we often do. furthermore, say lets look at the brain. Even if humans cannoy (yet) come up with something as good as the brain, it does not mean that evolution (as in the algorithm) is cleverer than us, since it has had alot more time, and works in a different way. We now design many things, such as aircraft wings, using algorithmic evolutionary processes, and these methods come up with far better wing designs than a human could.... are these algorithms more intelligent than humans (we after all did design these algorithms)

 

[Jet Black]

Intelligent Design is the scientific response to naturalism. Materialism or naturalism assumes that physical matter is the only reality in the universe and that everything else, including feeling, mind, thought and will can be explained in terms of physical laws. Intelligent Design (ID) on the other hand claims that all things cannot be explained by the laws of nature. The science behind intelligent design seeks evidence that may support either view. ID would more correctly be called simply; science, were it not for the extreme bias toward materialism currently in scientific theories, especially the theory of evolution.

I disagree here. the aim of science is indeed to explain the natural, however if there is absolutely no explanation for something, then clearly the answer it will return is "we don't know" the ID movement only has 2 things left that it can really look at 1)the big bang, and the laws of physics 2)the emergence of life. Neither of these really give any hint as to why they should have been intelligently designed.

One would think that scientists would follow evidence to wherever it leads. The facts and evidence should be evaluated logically, one would think, and then presented to the public with the benefit of the expert opinions. Unfortunately the facts and evidence are now required to be spun about or made to fit with a materialistic explanation before the public is considered worthy to digest the research. This is simply dishonest. If scientific research leads to Intelligent Design is a scientist allowed to tell us? Can one publish a thesis in a scientific journal that indicates intelligent design? Too often the answers to those questions are no. Intelligent Design is simply science without the requirement to mislead in the direction of naturalism.

http://www.blindatheist.com/linkbooks.htm

But when does soemthing indicate intelligent design? we see algorithms that do extremely complex things, and yet are startlingly simple in themselves. the only thing that could really imply intelligent design is something that is physically not possible, or could not come about via some natural algorithmic process. an example of this would be hundred mile high flaming letters spelling out "I was here - God" in times new roman font.

 

[nyj]

My thoughts on this are:
1-artists often throw paints about to create, but this is not intellient design. It is not created by design or plan, but by chance. The creator had no preconcieved notion as to how it would turn out.

But it was the artist that chose the particular paint colors, bought and set up the canvas, picked up a particular brush to use, etc. Though the end product was not preconcieved, it was most certainly "led" in a particular direction.

2-Evolution is NOT intelligent design either as it is not directed nor accomplished by a plan.

Evolution is directed, by the environment and other ecological niche factors (competition for resources, etc) for instance.

 

[WinAce]

I seemed to be confuse by the concept of "intelligent" design. How do we say something is intelligently designed? In order to classify something as "intelligently" designed, we must first have something that is "non-intelligently" designed. But by the definition of (divine) "intelligent" design, everything must be designed, from a star to a piece of rock.

Isn't this a circular argument?

That's why the appropriate question is not whether something was designed, but which design process was used. We can tell, using science, whether organisms were independently manufactured or descended from earlier organisms, for example.

 

[Bushido216]

Intelligent Design is a cheap ploy to get around the Constitution and put creationism in public schools--

--where it doesn't belong.

 

[MartinM]

How does one define intelligent design? Not at all, unless one wants it to be open to critical examination.