Intelligent Design, what do you think

[mark kennedy]

I have gotten interested in intelligent design and I was just curious what creationists think of it. Darwinians claim that it open the door to supernatural explanations, which if fine by me, but Intelligent Design scientists claim that is doesn't. I don't expect that you will see creationism making its way into mainstream science anytime soon. Intelligent Design on the other hand is gaining credibility and seems to be a growing movement in science and education.

I like it because I really don't like having the Bible subjected to ridicule it gets in scientific circles. If you are interested in the subject of ID here are a couple of sites that I would recommend:

Discovery Institute

Intelligent Design Network

 

[Matisyahu]

Hey Mark,
I started a thread in the general OT area not seeing this one. Looks like we caught a common bug.

 

[mark kennedy]

Matisyahu,

Could you provide a link, I would be interested in what kind of posts it produced.

 

[Knowledge3]

I've always thought of Intelligent Design to be a philosophical engine that enforces natural facts. When you think about evolution in it's most basic form, as a natural mechanism without Darwinism clouding it up, it actually makes sense as far explaining biology.

I think it should be a optional or advanced course taught at the college and university level instead of something of this magnitude at high school students.

It only makes sense to start somewhere and work your way up. Intelligent Design is something that starts at the top and works it's way down. Many who defend evolution are often intimidated by such a possibility. It is a proposition that answers everything at once while searching out the unknown.

I may be looking to academics and applying something to my life with it.

This is a good resource.

http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/index.asp

 

[keyarch]

I have gotten interested in intelligent design and I was just curious what creationists think of it. ....

The Intelligent Design theory is more of a philosophical criticism of methodological naturalism and neo-Darwinian evolution.

As some tenets of Creationism are similar, it is logical that there would be a directional alliance and that Creationist could use aspects of I.D. as a witnessing tool to get people thinking about our Creator as the Designer. That doesn’t imply that proponents of I.D. are doing the same. They feel that they are merely being intellectually honest and taking the evidence where it leads and opening the door to other kinds of investigation.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have a confession to make fellas, my interest in evolution is almost completely philosophical. Once I was convinced of the ressurection and the deity of Christ the creation of life was automatic. Still, I think ID is a normal reaction when you see the complexity of life in all of its many forms.

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there. (William Paley, Natural Theology 1802)

What you don't realize is that this was the mainstream science before Darwin came up with natural selection. What is more, natural science as we think of it was not taught untill you did your graduate studies which included the original languages of the Bible. At that time the U.S. led the world in science and technology but they finally purged any religious conviction from school curiculums from kindergarden to PHD level study. Now we have major problems with our public schools and its a disgrace.

 

[Smidlee]

Last month at Kansas I sure many here knows the debate about evolution and ID. many ID scientists showed up but not one evolutionists did. If this was a debate over creationism no doubt evolutionists would have broken the necks trying to get in this meeting to debate. Yet evolutionist avoid confronting ID head on. I have a theory why the evolutionist didn't show as it something I been noticing for a while , I wonder if anyone else here have an idea why they didn't show up?

 

[mark kennedy]

Last month at Kansas I sure many here knows the debate about evolution and ID. many ID scientists showed up but not one evolutionists did. If this was a debate over creationism no doubt evolutionists would have broken the necks trying to get in this meeting to debate. Yet evolutionist avoid confronting ID head on. I have a theory why the evolutionist didn't show as it something I been noticing for a while , I wonder if anyone else here have an idea why they didn't show up?

Because the ID advocates are making convincing arguments and in a couple of years many school systems will be buying new textbooks. The boycott is supposed to be an effort to take attention away from the ID arguments but I think it's because they are losing these debates. The tried the characterize the minority report as a religiously motivated tojan horse which is absurd. All they were suggesting is that science should be defined as an open ended inquiry not a forgone conclusion.

Why did they refuse to show up for the debate? Because they are losing and no one wants to be left holding the bag when ID finally wins this fight. If you think ID is losing you might find this poll of interest:

Evolution vs. intelligent design

The dogma of Darwinism is finally being challenged in the public arena by a legitamate alternative theory. Historically scientists have attributed our origins to Intelligent design and many modern scientists are taking the traditional view of natural science. Darwinians can't defend their views so they simply refuse to try, I think they know they are losing this fight.

 

[Smidlee]

Yes but Intelligent design isn't really all that new and still doesn't explain why no evolutionist showed up to debate. I still don't believe evolutionist are losing but just a politician has much to lose in debating ID head on. I believe one of ID attacks againest evolutionist is very weak which it only strong on the surface but evolutionist can't afford to expose it since it's the one of the better weapons againest creationist especially YEC.
I still not sure if ID will be successful or have made any strong dent on people's opinion of TOE. I'm sure it has impress some though.

 

[keyarch]

Last month at Kansas I sure many here knows the debate about evolution and ID. many ID scientists showed up but not one evolutionists did. If this was a debate over creationism no doubt evolutionists would have broken the necks trying to get in this meeting to debate. Yet evolutionists avoid confronting ID head on. I have a theory why the evolutionist didn't show as it something I been noticing for a while , I wonder if anyone else here have an idea why they didn't show up?

I just recently finished listening to the hearings at: www.audible.com (in the search box enter Kansas Evolution). They ask you to sign up, but it is free and the evolution hearing files are free.
It was long, but totally fascinating. I think if more people could take the time to listen to what was said they would agree with the minority report. The debate really cleared up many definitions of terms that were very helpful, like the difference between micro and macro evolution; operational science and historical science etc.

The council for the majority report was an embarrassment to the evolution side, and their tactics were clearly exposed. I think if they did have a real argument that would withstand the cross-examination, they wouldn't have boycotted; and used it to shut down the debate altogether.

 

[Windmill]

I have gotten interested in intelligent design and I was just curious what creationists think of it. Darwinians claim that it open the door to supernatural explanations, which if fine by me, but Intelligent Design scientists claim that is doesn't. I don't expect that you will see creationism making its way into mainstream science anytime soon. Intelligent Design on the other hand is gaining credibility and seems to be a growing movement in science and education.

I like it because I really don't like having the Bible subjected to ridicule it gets in scientific circles. If you are interested in the subject of ID here are a couple of sites that I would recommend:

Discovery Institute

Intelligent Design Network

Have you ever thought of something like "deep"? Like something thats uncomphrendable? I'm sure you have. You think about it for a second, and its like you're enlightened, but due to how your brain can't handle it, it blanks out extremely quickly. I got one of those today. I thought about how the world..... how is there no end? The universe. It just keeps rolling... and rolling.... I can't imagine there being no end! And it doesn't go in a circle either like earth, its just got no end, no boundrys..... then I thought, hey, how can that have created itself? It can't have. There must be an intelligant designer.... and you only have to look at how complex the human eye is to realise that

If you don't believe in a 6-day creation, then I don't understand how it fits in with the bible without undermining its authority and the entire reason for salvation...

 

[Matisyahu]

I would say that it is more than criticism of neo-Darwinian evolution, although that plays an important key step, since a Darwinian approach rules out certain other kinds of explanations before looking at the evidence.

There must be an intelligant designer.... and you only have to look at how complex the human eye is to realise that

It is about formalizing this intuition in the context of scientific research and discovery. It is answering the following question positively: can some features of the natural world accurately display inferable design, without knowledge of their history or production? After a hypothesis of 'yes', it preceeds to attempt a theory to answer the important question 'how'? It is a young movement, and needs more thinkers and scientists to participate.

Mark, did you check out the other links I posted in main room?

(Its now on the second page of threads "ID for you and me"--I think this should be discussed with TE's, because its really a problem for them, and a no brainer for Creationist non-TEs. We think, "duh, of course the universe has evidence of design." Well, okay--but that needs to be formalized, which is what ID is about. TEs often believe that God's presence in the world should be presumed to be hidden, at least for the purposes of doing science. ID is a challenge to that.)

 

[mark kennedy]

I would say that it is more than criticism of neo-Darwinian evolution, although that plays an important key step, since a Darwinian approach rules out certain other kinds of explanations before looking at the evidence.

Just as Darwin had to unseat creationism (teleology, immutability of species...etc) intelligent design has to unseat neodarwinism. This isn't going to happen anytime soon but, over time but I think it could. Evolutionary biology does not need neodarwinism and if creationists realized that creationism is a part of evolutionary biology perhaps this issue could be more balanced.

It is about formalizing this intuition in the context of scientific research and discovery. It is answering the following question positively: can some features of the natural world accurately display inferable design, without knowledge of their history or production? After a hypothesis of 'yes', it preceeds to attempt a theory to answer the important question 'how'? It is a young movement, and needs more thinkers and scientists to participate.

ID is a fairly new movement that is largely intellectual and philosophical. The fact is that substantive issues are important to forming a theory in science and they are making progress. The key issue for me is the physiological costs of adaptation. Some things in living systems have to be fully formed and cannot be accumulated peicemeal.

Mark, did you check out the other links I posted in main room?

(Its now on the second page of threads "ID for you and me"--I think this should be discussed with TE's, because its really a problem for them, and a no brainer for Creationist non-TEs. We think, "duh, of course the universe has evidence of design." Well, okay--but that needs to be formalized, which is what ID is about. TEs often believe that God's presence in the world should be presumed to be hidden, at least for the purposes of doing science. ID is a challenge to that.)

I checked out your thread and I posted my thoughts on one of the links. The thing about Intelligent Design is whether or not it can be verified scientifically. I really think irreducible complexity has potential for steering from the reefs of darwinism without driving it out into the stormy sea of religious thought. We can discuss it futher in the main room if you like, it would be refreshing to discuss it with a creationist for a change.