Is "Intelligent Design" just another name for...

[birdan]

You may wish to reduce my argument to the absurd. In fact, here is a better absurdity. Why should we teach a2 + b2 = c2 and leave out a a variable that represents God? The equation should be a2 + b2 = c2 + G. Lets boil our sophistry down to terms everyone can understand. That way everyone will know that your straw man doesn't work. You cannot rightly apply the Pythagoreum theorem to your life as architect unless you thank God for the provision that makes it possible to build buildings.

Except when an architect uses a2 + b2 = c2 + G, they'd better be making G = 0 to design buildings that don't fall down. Are you sure that's the message you want to get across? Maybe God enters into an architect's aesthetic sense of design, but I sure hope it doesn't enter into their structural design.

 

[Mallon]

I think anti-evolutionary creationists and people like Dawkins need to recognize science for what it is -- a tool. And like any tool, it is designed for a specific purpose: to further our understanding of the natural world using natural explanations. Just like a bike is a tool to physically get us from point A to point B, science is a tool to mentally get us from point A to point B. And just as we don't need to believe in God in order to work a bike, nor do we need to believe in God in order to use science. But that doesn't make riding a bike or using science inherently atheistic. As a Christian, everything I do is for and about God; there is nothing I can do without Him. We don't need to retroactively squeeze God into our equations in order to feel reassured about our faith.

 

[Fed]

Intelligent design makes a mockery of science and God. So you accept that God could naturally create most of the biodiversity now and in the past, but oh no, there's just one or two things we haven't completely figured out so let's just chalk it up to Goddidit. What kind of theology is that? God decides to create using natural means, but he runs into a problem and uses an ad hoc miracle? Sounds more like unintelligent design to me.

And ID is the antithesis to everything science stands for. If previous generations were full of IDists we'd have no progress in science. Poor Einstein slaved away at the math for General Relativity for years - he should have just claimed Goddidit. We don't have a theory of quantum gravity - Goddidit!

 

[busterdog]

Except when an architect uses a2 + b2 = c2 + G, they'd better be making G = 0 to design buildings that don't fall down. Are you sure that's the message you want to get across? Maybe God enters into an architect's aesthetic sense of design, but I sure hope it doesn't enter into their structural design.

Then we agree. No one said to make God a number and enter it into your calculator, which is what some thought I had proposed. Obviously I provided an absurd example.

If you take a concept as complicated as urban planning, which requires loads of wisdom, indeed would be of great assistance.

I know an engineer who has heard from God about flaws in the design of a building and otherwise used Biblical principles to guide his work. It saved his life in one instance on a demolition project. It deterred him from even attempting a renovation on another. It gave him enormous efficiency to finish an impossible project elsewhere.

Why must we always assume the worst about how God is to figure in such things. Why assume that anyone thinks God is to be a calculator key or a tyranical gatekeeper who prevents scientific study? Again, lots of ID guys are evolutionists.

 

[busterdog]

I think anti-evolutionary creationists and people like Dawkins need to recognize science for what it is -- a tool. And like any tool, it is designed for a specific purpose: to further our understanding of the natural world using natural explanations. Just like a bike is a tool to physically get us from point A to point B, science is a tool to mentally get us from point A to point B. And just as we don't need to believe in God in order to work a bike, nor do we need to believe in God in order to use science. But that doesn't make riding a bike or using science inherently atheistic. As a Christian, everything I do is for and about God; there is nothing I can do without Him. We don't need to retroactively squeeze God into our equations in order to feel reassured about our faith.

Let's get back to the OP: intelligent design or the acknowledgement of God in what we teach and do.

You have made the acknowledgment proposed by ID. You apparently quibble about whether it belongs in a textbook. However, you obviously derive some benefit from your approach. I simply say that this benefit is fact and lets just say it. In particular, let's say it to kids. Let's say they want learn the Pythagorean Theorem. Would we not expect better results if they pray.

Psa 127:1 [[A Song of degrees for Solomon.]] Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh [but] in vain.

 

[Mallon]

You have made the acknowledgment proposed by ID. You apparently quibble about whether it belongs in a textbook. However, you obviously derive some benefit from your approach. I simply say that this benefit is fact and lets just say it. In particular, let's say it to kids. Let's say they want learn the Pythagorean Theorem. Would we not expect better results if they pray.

I'm all for teaching our children that God is supreme and acts providentially.

What I am against is the following:
1) Public school teachers enforcing their religion on my children (if I had any).
2) Religious ideas posing as science (as does Intelligent Design).
3) God-of-the-Gaps theology (as implied by Intelligent Design).

And getting back to your last statement up there: Would YOU expect Christians to be better at learning the Pythagorean Theorem? That's a testable prediction. If you did your homework and found that, in fact, atheists understood the Pythagorean Theorem better than Christians, what would you conclude about God?

 

[Smidlee]

Do you really want to have a debate about hidden agendas? Every "movement" has one somewhere -- even Darwinism.

Do you think every single ID proponent has a hidden agenda?

That is certainly not reasonable.

LEt's just deal with the merits of the argument and not with conspiracy theories.

But there exactly what the trail (Judge) stood on, the conspiracy theory. That is that ID (not just those on the school board) was trying to force (Notice hidden agenda) creationism into public schools and was trying to get around the law. Now to say this conspiracy could be true is one thing but stating it as a fact is another.

Added: I live in a state where politicians has used the "Education" card one time too many. This card is useful because the general public cares about their children education. So education was a weapon for a poltiican to raise taxes, his agenda,etc.) They cried wolf so much they didn't even bother using the lie that the lotteey was for education and just sneak the bill in.
American also cares about science which is why some Darwinist want to paint everyone who a critic as "anti-science" or/and has some "hidden agenda" to overthrow our public schools (God knows they need to be overthrown , they are way too political) and send America back to the Dark ages.

 

[Deamiter]

I suppose by definition I'd be an ID proponent because I find the use evolution to be incredibly intelligent -- evolutionary algorithms are used by thousands of researchers worldwide to optimize systems. That's not how ID is generally presented, however. My understanding is that ID proponents claim that there is evidence that evolution cannot account for the diversity of life and thus some supernatural or at least unknown force must be invoked to explain the diversity of life.

Yes, many ID proponents are "evolutionists" much like busterdog is an evolutionist in that he accepts that evolution does happen. I've even seen scientists support the questions raised by ID because such questions are fundemental to the scientific method. I have to admit, however, that I have yet to see a supporter of ID who didn't impose some unknown and arbitrary limits on the process of evolution.

 

[Deamiter]

But there exactly what the trail (Judge) stood on, the conspiracy theory. That is that ID (not just those on the school board) was trying to force (Notice hidden agenda) creationism into public schools and was trying to get around the law. Now to say this conspiracy could be true is one thing but stating it as a fact is another.

You have a point. In this particular case there WAS a (not so) hidden agenda as evidenced by statements and notes written by those interested in using ID in the classroom and in the extremely obvious edit of "Of Pandas and People" where "creationism" and "creator" was simply replaced with "intelligent design" and "designer."

Despite the agenda of creationists who pretty clearly tried to USE ID as a way to get creationism into the public classrooms, I think busterdog's point is that the use of ID by these people does not say anything about ID itself. In particular, those trying to get creationism into the classroom via ID were not the same people who built ID in the first place.

Similarly (as busterdog said) there are some who wish to use evolution to promote atheism, but it does not follow that evolution is solely or primarily an atheist conspiracy.

 

[busterdog]

I'm all for teaching our children that God is supreme and acts providentially.

What I am against is the following:
1) Public school teachers enforcing their religion on my children (if I had any).
2) Religious ideas posing as science (as does Intelligent Design).
3) God-of-the-Gaps theology (as implied by Intelligent Design).

And getting back to your last statement up there: Would YOU expect Christians to be better at learning the Pythagorean Theorem? That's a testable prediction. If you did your homework and found that, in fact, atheists understood the Pythagorean Theorem better than Christians, what would you conclude about God?

What I would conclude about God is that no one is listening to him in this country. When this was a church going country, we were the best there was at the pythagorean theorem.

As for religious ideas posing as science, God is a fact. God's intervention is a fact. Supposedly science is supposed to deal with fact, whether those facts are hard or easy. (And, gaps are a fact as well.)

As for public school teachers enforcing their religion. They are no matter what you or I do. Scientists also experiement with feotal tissue. Maybe I should worry that they would experiment with my child (sincer no worldview is exempt from the "what if" argument).

 

[busterdog]

You have a point. In this particular case there WAS a (not so) hidden agenda as evidenced by statements and notes written by those interested in using ID in the classroom and in the extremely obvious edit of "Of Pandas and People" where "creationism" and "creator" was simply replaced with "intelligent design" and "designer."

Despite the agenda of creationists who pretty clearly tried to USE ID as a way to get creationism into the public classrooms, I think busterdog's point is that the use of ID by these people does not say anything about ID itself. In particular, those trying to get creationism into the classroom via ID were not the same people who built ID in the first place.

Similarly (as busterdog said) there are some who wish to use evolution to promote atheism, but it does not follow that evolution is solely or primarily an atheist conspiracy.

Thank you.

And what was hidden about it? Wasn't it rather obvious? Some were no doubt sneaky, contemptible ax-grinding bigots. But, does make the whole lot bad?

I listened to a long talk by that guy from Californian, the (oh my gosh!) law professor, Phil Johnson. He was pretty forthright about where he was coming from.

 

[Mallon]

When this was a church going country, we were the best there was at the pythagorean theorem.

As for religious ideas posing as science, God is a fact. God's intervention is a fact. Supposedly science is supposed to deal with fact, whether those facts are hard or easy. (And, gaps are a fact as well.)

I agree that God is fact. Your problem is that, like most anti-evolutionary creationists, you are still equating fact with science (a form of scientism). Science deals with a particular realm of facts: physical facts. And because God the Father does not have a physical body (John 4:24a), science cannot measure Him. So God is left out of the equation. That is not to say science rejects God, just that it cannot validate His actions one way or another... as it fully admits. Good scientists know the limits of science. Bad scientists, like Dawkins and the folks at AiG, do not understand the limits of science. They try to use science to prove or disprove God.

As for public school teachers enforcing their religion. They are no matter what you or I do. Scientists also experiement with feotal tissue. Maybe I should worry that they would experiment with my child (sincer no worldview is exempt from the "what if" argument).

I completely missed your point here.

 

[Deamiter]

As for religious ideas posing as science, God is a fact. God's intervention is a fact. Supposedly science is supposed to deal with fact, whether those facts are hard or easy. (And, gaps are a fact as well.)

I agree with all but the last couple sentences. God exists. That is a fact. But as mallon pointed out, science does not deal with all facts. Science deals with the observable. Observations are used (ostensibly as facts) to make predictions that are tested by further observations. It is this PROCESS that defines science, not a collection of facts themselves.

At one time all of "thinking" was known as philosophy. This has since become such a huge field that it's split a number of times. Science deals with the observable. Philosophy deals with the knowable. Theology deals with our understanding of the supernatural. All can deal with truths, but not all truths fit into every category.

 

[busterdog]

I agree with all but the last couple sentences. God exists. That is a fact. But as mallon pointed out, science does not deal with all facts. Science deals with the observable. Observations are used (ostensibly as facts) to make predictions that are tested by further observations. It is this PROCESS that defines science, not a collection of facts themselves.

At one time all of "thinking" was known as philosophy. This has since become such a huge field that it's split a number of times. Science deals with the observable. Philosophy deals with the knowable. Theology deals with our understanding of the supernatural. All can deal with truths, but not all truths fit into every category.

(I keep looking for trouble.)

Well, God is faithful, according to scripture.

That is, He is predictable and (in action or effect) observable.

Military science is a science. In the Old Testament, military science meant repentance and calling upon the Lord.

God is Jehovah Raffa, the God who heals. Does the science of medicine make use of God?

And, as even handed as your formulation sounds, that is not who academia behaves. Much of science is contemptuous of God. The God of the gaps problem is similar. Heisenberg can say somethings are fundamentally unknowable (location and inertia at the same time), so why can't their be a God of the gaps?

 

[Mallon]

That is, He is predictable and (in action or effect) observable.

Excellent.
So how can we use science to detect the actions of God? What test can we perform to determine His presence in the world? These are fundamental questions that I have yet to see any YEC answer to date. Will you be the first, busterdog?

Much of science is contemptuous of God. The God of the gaps problem is similar.

Correction. Many scientists are contemptuous of God. Please learn the difference. Science cannot be contemptuous of God.

Heisenberg can say somethings are fundamentally unknowable (location and inertia at the same time), so why can't their be a God of the gaps?

Again. Because:
(a) It's bad theology. Science fills in the gaps in our knowledge, leaving less room for God, according to your construct.
(b) God-of-the-gaps arguments promote ignorance. They encourage us to stop trying when we encounter a difficult problem. God Himself doesn't even encourage this type of anti-intellectualism (Proverbs 25:2).

 

[busterdog]

Excellent.
So how can we use science to detect the actions of God? What test can we perform to determine His presence in the world? These are fundamental questions that I have yet to see any YEC answer to date. Will you be the first, busterdog?

Economics: we humble ourselves and call on God's mercy, acknowledging his power.
Military science: ditto.
Political sciene: ditto
Medicine: ditto

Any number of studies have been done on the power of prayer. Some positive some not. SO, clearly it can be done. Since you have not definitive refutation that this science works, then obviously we are in the realm of science making a meaningful study of God.

Correction. Many scientists are contemptuous of God. Please learn the difference. Science cannot be contemptuous of God.

The House of Buster say I like my way of saying the same thing better.

Again. Because:
(a) It's bad theology. Science fills in the gaps in our knowledge, leaving less room for God, according to your construct.
(b) God-of-the-gaps arguments promote ignorance. They encourage us to stop trying when we encounter a difficult problem. God Himself doesn't even encourage this type of anti-intellectualism (Proverbs 25:2).

Actually, science has pointed to more things that are fundamentally unknowable than have been discovered since Ptolemy. The gap is getting bigger, not being filled. See Robert Jastrow. See unified field theory (which doesn't exist). See the super hadron collider - billions to get the barest glimpse at other dimensions. See God (which of course you do, as most here do). See ID.

 

[gluadys]

Actually, science has pointed to more things that are fundamentally unknowable than have been discovered since Ptolemy. The gap is getting bigger, not being filled. See Robert Jastrow. See unified field theory (which doesn't exist). See the super hadron collider - billions to get the barest glimpse at other dimensions. See God (which of course you do, as most here do). See ID.

For me the proposition "We don't know yet, therefore God" just doesn't work. Does that not imply that when we do know we will no longer know God?

I would rather see God in the event of the big bang and the process of nucleosynthesis and galaxy formation, in the predictability of chemical reactions, in the molecular structure of DNA and how it is fashioned to permit evolution. In the elegance of the mathematical structures which seem basic to so much of nature's being.

I don't say God is not in the gaps, but I expect that when we fill in the gaps, God will still be there. Indeed, it is seeing God in what we know that assures me that God is in what we don't know yet as well.

I don't see that principle operating very well in reverse.

 

[Deamiter]

Any number of studies have been done on the power of prayer. Some positive some not. SO, clearly it can be done. Since you have not definitive refutation that this science works, then obviously we are in the realm of science making a meaningful study of God.

You seem to admit that these studies have yielded ambiguous and conflicting results at best. I would argue that that is because the studies are flawed and that it is impossible to predict God's answer to any particular prayer. Are you arguing that the studies can help us to predict God's actions?

The House of Buster say I like my way of saying the same thing better.

Do you at least acknowledge that what you said was incorrect? Science can't say anything because it's not a person. It's no more able to contradict God than a hammer or any other tool. Your insistence that because some scientists are contemptuous of God, science itself is contemptuous of God is logically inconsistent. It's no more accurate than saying that because some Christians are racist, Christianity is racist.

Of course, you might have meant this sarcastically, but do remember to use the smilies in those cases 'cuz I'm not clairvoyant.

Actually, science has pointed to more things that are fundamentally unknowable than have been discovered since Ptolemy. The gap is getting bigger, not being filled. See Robert Jastrow. See unified field theory (which doesn't exist). See the super hadron collider - billions to get the barest glimpse at other dimensions. See God (which of course you do, as most here do). See ID.

... so because we know enough to ask better and bigger questions, we should continue to put God wherever we don't know the answer? I suppose since the gaps we're aware of are getting larger, it might seem that God is getting greater but since these gaps existed before we knew about them wouldn't God still be getting smaller?

Yes, I know discussing the changing size of God is rather ridiculous, but you seemed to argue that because we know about larger gaps, it's somehow an even better idea to invoke God whenever we don't know the answer to a question.

 

[Deamiter]

For me the proposition "We don't know yet, therefore God" just doesn't work. Does that not imply that when we do know we will no longer know God?

I would rather see God in the event of the big bang and the process of nucleosynthesis and galaxy formation, in the predictability of chemical reactions, in the molecular structure of DNA and how it is fashioned to permit evolution. In the elegance of the mathematical structures which seem basic to so much of nature's being.

I don't say God is not in the gaps, but I expect that when we fill in the gaps, God will still be there. Indeed, it is seeing God in what we know that assures me that God is in what we don't know yet as well.

I don't see that principle operating very well in reverse.

Well said! I see God in what I do know and understand and seek further wisdom and understanding so that I might see even more tiny glimpses of God's glory. I certainly believe God will be present and his glory apparent in stuff I do not yet understand, but not BECAUSE I do not understand it!

 

[busterdog]

For me the proposition "We don't know yet, therefore God" just doesn't work

.

Whose proposition is that? Certainly a person at the end of his rope who calls out for God receives assurance that it does work. Many, many, many Christians started exactly there.

As for "therefore God", first all, we reach that conclusion because of what he has done for us personally, not because we are clueless.

What does the gap teach? That the boundary between science and God is artificial. That is a distinct point. If you can demonstrate that man really knows less and less, not more and more, then we have no basis to exclude a fact (God) demonstrated to us on grounds other than scientific grounds.

Does that not imply that when we do know we will no longer know God?

Yes. Thinking we do know will compel that conclusion. Many have reached that conclusion. Scripture suggests just exactly that result. Peoples hearts are at times hardened to help them complete that process of falling into error. But, for those of us who do know God, the question is whether there is any reasonable prospect that we will get to that point of knowing all the secrets or even the most basic ones, as opposed to being deluded in thinking so.

I would rather see God in the event of the big bang and the process of nucleosynthesis and galaxy formation, in the predictability of chemical reactions, in the molecular structure of DNA and how it is fashioned to permit evolution. In the elegance of the mathematical structures which seem basic to so much of nature's being.

All of which are perfectly compatible with the essence of ID.

I don't say God is not in the gaps, but I expect that when we fill in the gaps, God will still be there. Indeed, it is seeing God in what we know that assures me that God is in what we don't know yet as well.

Amen.

I don't see that principle operating very well in reverse.

Does anyone ever cry out to God from a position of really knowing the answer for which they cry out?

The principle in reverse worked for Abraham.


Rom 4:19
And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: Rom 4:20
He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;