Exploring Intelligent Design

[ElusiveTruth]

No theories, many hypotheses. No real evidence, either.

One of the most interesting things I notice is this obsession with evidence. I appreciate and understand the importance of evidence as well as the next person. Doesn't mean I worship it and can't think for myself without evidence to post signboards leading me all the way to a conclusion. In the majority of cases evidence is neutral and can lead to different conclusions.

Evolution may indeed be natural processes which in a way yet to be understood came about without the involvement of an intelligent agent. Evolution may also unfold as it does, with clear processes, because an intelligent agent played a part in making it. There is no evidence to conclusively determine which is true of false. Does this mean the entire world has to wait from a standpoint of "No intelligent agent involved?"

Furthermore evidence doesn't change the territory... evidence is used to make an accurate map. Does that mean that only one possible map can be made? Last time I checked there were many, many different maps covering the same exact territory... and they can differ significantly.

if the big bang is accurate, there are some implications for the origins that render cause and effect null and void. If spacetime came into being at the big bang, there would be no time "before" the big bang, which would make asking what came before the universe nonsensical.

Who said SpaceTime came into being at the Big Bang? There is no evidence to suggest that the Big Bang wouldn't need a cause. Nothing is known about existence outside of the Universe and claiming that the Big Bang doesn't need a cause is as much speculation as anything else.

But as to why the universe has the properties it does, we dont know. its not something we can determine at the present time. That doesnt mean that someone else is justified in inserting an explanation. It means we dont know.

Because you don't know... nobody else is allowed to insert an explanation? If you do not know then what justifies your deciding whether or not another explanation is possible? And just because you can not conclusively determine it with your oh so important falsifiable evidence... nobody else can use other means to determine possibilities?

Not knowing isnt a bad thing, per se. It allows for our knowledge to develop. but inserting an answer before its warranted stops investigation. Once you have an answer, you tend not to keep looking for one. Its like looking for your keys after you find them, it would make no sense.

Isn't it science that has already inserted an answer saying that Intelligent Design isn't worth looking into. Is science really approaching its research from a position of neutrality where it truly seeks to determine the truth whether or not it is what they or anybody else hoped for?

If science is supposed to come from a position of we don't know... how do you justify the repeated assumptions and adamant insistence the intelligence could not have played a part in ANY of the processes that lead from the creation of the universe to the evolution of mankind? Doesn't sound like a discipline that is investigating before inserting answers.

The biggest problem with the subject of the origins of the universe is that we simply dont have enough evidence. Its just really hard to find, and may even be impossible for us to get from inside the universe.

I have said this elsewhere and I will say it again... maybe there isn't evidence for everything out there. Maybe there are things which science will never be able to apply it's falsifiable tests to. That is why there are other disciplines including philosophy and the use of logic, reason and observation to come to conclusions.

Do you know how much the Mayans and Egyptians knew about the solar system? We use a calendar based on the Mayan System to this day... and yet they didn't have our tools, our rockets, our space probes. They didn't have scientific methodology.

Do you know any of the remarkable conclusions ancient philosophers already came to without the use of our technology? They through philosophy and the application of their minds and observation... already determined things that would only be confirmed after the middle ages.

There were remarkable minds that came to correct conclusions with less than a tenth of today's technology and all the so-called knowledge, using disciplines that are today looked down on by a science that needs to have evidence and technology to figure things out. Imagine what we could achieve if we expanded science and applied age old disciplines along with today's knowledge and technology... alas it is but a dream.

[Ken Carman]

I understand the viewpoint and approach of atheists in general but I do question their adamant insistence that there is no evidence for intelligent design. Or perhaps I just question their definition of and understanding of the concept of intelligent design.

I do not understand the viewpoint and approach of the many religious people in particular those whose beliefs are based on evidence that has already been discarded as nonsense. For instance those who believe the world was created a few thousand years ago. I definitely question their definition and understanding of intelligent design.

How do you define and understand Intelligent Design? Whether or not you believe in it, if you have an opinion about it you obviously must have some kind of concept in mind. I think it'd be interesting to explore these concepts. I have noticed that atheists in particular squirm away from the problem of defining Intelligent Design, let alone defining God. Religious people are easily attacked by skeptics specifically because they define what they believe in. Atheists supposedly don't need to... but I think it is interesting to also look at the definitions that atheists scorn with such vehemence and certainty.

There are two main things to look at. First of all what is your definition and secondly what is the evidence for or against said definition. It is when the evidence is lined up that things get interesting. The fun part is messing with the definition to accommodate or refute a definition. Anybody want to step up and throw up a definition?

For those who want to start off by bringing in evidence for or against Intelligent Design here is one of my own definitions. "Intelligent Design is the creation of a framework of Laws within which the universe freely unfolds within the boundaries of said Laws."

You know I would agree that Intelligent Design has been hijacked, perhaps even started, as a philosophical cover for anti-evolution Creationism, but if one simply believes: really believes, that something out there may have guided these things... if by no other means than the way they developed... one could point to anecdotal "evidence" I suppose. That I have no problem with, personally. In fact, while I'm not sure about "guided," I do believe there's something out there, whatever that something (somethings?) may be. But I'm more of a mind that, if there is, it either started the ball rolling or helped it along. The rules, or principals, that guide these things may have been put in place by whatever we are talking about, or just naturally developed once the ball started rolling.

Here is what you have: something happened: in fact an impossible to imagine amount of somethings, but let's start with this Big Bang event. Who knows what went before that. I suspect as much or more than what has happened since: there's probably always been something. Once that event occurred, yes once can point to how they're connected: but they're connected because that's the way they happened. They could have occurred another way, minor differences, some quite major... maybe. So no matter what happened one could claim that "proves" ID. But logically, no it doesn't: it only proves something happened. Something happened doesn't prove who did something. The murders alone didn't prove OJ did it. Trayvon dying ALONE doesn't prove George did it. The events after are connected, perhaps, but connected because things developed alone what we think was a logical, scientific, path. Now if we can get a DNA laced glove with God's DNA on it, George's gun, you might come closer. But first you'd have to sit God down and get a sample of his DNA, or have a lot of witnesses whose testimony doesn't keep shifting and isn't suspect who saw God do it and can point to him on a witness stand saying, "He did it!" The Bible won't do, for we'd have to prove he wrote it. He didn't, we did, though one could argue he "inspired it." That's pretty thin "proof" though. That's why a believer believes, why faith is important. And also why there are so many versions of it over time. Perhaps we're all listening, but hearing it a bit differently: a common human experience.

[Jack]

Do they have to give this designer specific capabilities in order for it to possibly exist? Does its existence or lack thereof hinge on whether or not there is specific information about its capabilities?

How can you logically credit a process or thing with an action if you have no idea if a process or thing is capable of performing that action? We accept that we'll likely never be able to travel back in time and determine exactly how life began. So instead, scientists conduct experiments to determine if nature is capable of producing the conditions under which life might have emerged. If they discover that nature is incapable of producing those conditions, or that the conditions that likely did exist at that time were not conducive to life beginning the way we theorize it might have, then obviously they'll need to consider alternative possibilities.

IF IDers want us to accept their claims as credible then they need to show that their designer possesses the capability to produce life. If it does, how do they know that? ID has produced no experimentation or research that suggests that. If it cannot, and the claim is only that it can design life once life exists, then it's being presented as an alternative to evolution and not as a possible explanation for the emergence of life. Again, ID has produced no experimentation or research that suggests that. In fact, ID has produced no experimentation or research, period.

But so far scientists are finding that life could have emerged naturally. So far there's no need to suppose unnatural factors were involved. An intelligent designer would be an unnatural factor, unless you're suggesting that this designer arose from the same process that produced life, a rather awkward opinion to defend. Just the existence of intelligence before life emerged is an indefensible assertion.

And Intelligent Design does not necessarily mean an intelligent being in terms of human intelligence. It can mean something as simple as a cause or being that is aware and intentionally caused/formed the universe.

If you can't define or describe the intelligent designer it could be anything, any nonsense can be presented as a possibility. This claim also supposes something that existed prior to and external from the universe. What evidence suggests such a thing exists or existed?

It can also be an awareness so immense and profound that we can't possibly explain it or understand it.

Then it's of no use to us in our attempt to understand the universe or origin of life.

Please... if you have a good idea about how an intelligence that may have created an entire universe would function... share!

That's a question you should pose to IDers. They're the ones suggesting that's possible.

So because one person makes claims that are apparently disproven, which I'll take you word for, that means that an entire concept is BS? Why?

Because he and his buddy Dembski are the authors and primary proponents of the current ID movement. He's the source of all the claims being made in support of ID. If his basic presumptions are bogus then the conclusions he makes based on them are bogus as well.

[Ken Carman]

Wow... so the universe expanded quickly after the big bang. So what?

What caused the Big Bang? i don't give a rats ass about the Big Bang itself... I accept the general idea of that theory. But how did this Big Bang come about? And why did the universe unfold according to natural laws fro mthe moment of the big bang onwards? From where did the Big Bang occur? E.T.C

You know we're talking about events so long ago we're really shooting in the dark. You can postulate God, or an ongoing "creation" for lack of a better term (non-deity specific) as in my Closed System thread I just posted, but how are you to be sure exactly what the causes were pre-BB? Evidence would be altered over such a long period of time and, uh, one hell of a big boom?

Could it have been a deity bowling with the universe? I don't deny one out of many possibilities.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

One of the most interesting things I notice is this obsession with evidence. I appreciate and understand the importance of evidence as well as the next person. Doesn't mean I worship it and can't think for myself without evidence to post signboards leading me all the way to a conclusion. In the majority of cases evidence is neutral and can lead to different conclusions.

Without evidence, you cant distinguish one claim from another. its just preference at that point. Why dont you believe that leprechauns exist? Why dont you believe that universe building pixies are the cause for the universe's structure? Why dont you believe that sock gnomes steal your socks out of the dryer?

Evolution may indeed be natural processes which in a way yet to be understood came about without the involvement of an intelligent agent. Evolution may also unfold as it does, with clear processes, because an intelligent agent played a part in making it. There is no evidence to conclusively determine which is true of false. Does this mean the entire world has to wait from a standpoint of "No intelligent agent involved?"

Anyone who is intellectually honest does, because those people dont propose explanations when there is no evidence and no observation to be had. To do otherwise is the mark of a dishonest person.

Furthermore evidence doesn't change the territory... evidence is used to make an accurate map. Does that mean that only one possible map can be made? Last time I checked there were many, many different maps covering the same exact territory... and they can differ significantly.

And those maps all use the same evidence to be made: the shape and layout of the area. If someone came out with a map that they claimed is also accurate, but we start using it and finding that there are chunks of the map that are just off, what would you think of that?

Who said SpaceTime came into being at the Big Bang? There is no evidence to suggest that the Big Bang wouldn't need a cause. Nothing is known about existence outside of the Universe and claiming that the Big Bang doesn't need a cause is as much speculation as anything else.

the beginning of spacetime with the big bang is an implication of the big bang. if you run the reel in reverse, spacetime collapses into a singularity, and time stops. If you dont understand the implications of the science, its not really my problem, but it makes your arguments here less convincing, considering that you are not familiar with the big bang, the theory you are trying to unseat here.

Because you don't know... nobody else is allowed to insert an explanation? If you do not know then what justifies your deciding whether or not another explanation is possible? And just because you can not conclusively determine it with your oh so important falsifiable evidence... nobody else can use other means to determine possibilities?

Anyone can assert any explanation they want, but until the evidence supports it, its just a bald assertion without any reason to believe it. And what other means to you propose we use?

Isn't it science that has already inserted an answer saying that Intelligent Design isn't worth looking into. Is science really approaching its research from a position of neutrality where it truly seeks to determine the truth whether or not it is what they or anybody else hoped for?

Considering that ID makes claims that are DEMONSTRABLY false, there is not a reason for scientists to further consider it. its been shown to be false.

Do you continue to kill something after its dead? Do you continue to play a game after the game is over?

If science is supposed to come from a position of we don't know... how do you justify the repeated assumptions and adamant insistence the intelligence could not have played a part in ANY of the processes that lead from the creation of the universe to the evolution of mankind? Doesn't sound like a discipline that is investigating before inserting answers.

There is not enough evidence to make any reasonable claims about the origin of the universe, and to do otherwise is simple speculation. And ID makes claims about the evolution of life that are demonstrably false, such as the ridiculous Irreducable complexity crap that are just wrong. And if an intelligence was involved, why does it seem that the universe developed according to natural laws? And what is the point in supposing an extra part of something when we cannot even demonstrate that part to be real in the first place?

I have said this elsewhere and I will say it again... maybe there isn't evidence for everything out there. Maybe there are things which science will never be able to apply it's falsifiable tests to. That is why there are other disciplines including philosophy and the use of logic, reason and observation to come to conclusions.

And maybe you are wrong. If we are using maybes. Can you actually back this position up with something that science has no way of examining? and how to you demonstrate that your way of knowing is better than the scientific method?

Do you know how much the Mayans and Egyptians knew about the solar system? We use a calendar based on the Mayan System to this day... and yet they didn't have our tools, our rockets, our space probes. They didn't have scientific methodology.

Yep, they surely did, and they learned their FACTS by observation. And our calendar is not based on the Mayan system. Ours is the gregorian calendar, which was based on the Julian calendar, which was based on the calendars of the greeks.

And please, since you seem to think so highly of ancient knowledge, why dont you describe the supposed knowledge of the solar system that the anciencts had. dont forget your references, not just pulling shit from your ass.

Do you know any of the remarkable conclusions ancient philosophers already came to without the use of our technology? They through philosophy and the application of their minds and observation... already determined things that would only be confirmed after the middle ages.

Like?

There were remarkable minds that came to correct conclusions with less than a tenth of today's technology and all the so-called knowledge, using disciplines that are today looked down on by a science that needs to have evidence and technology to figure things out. Imagine what we could achieve if we expanded science and applied age old disciplines along with today's knowledge and technology... alas it is but a dream.

what correct conclusions are you talking about? please, feel free to expound on the wonderful knowledge of the ancients that somehow surpasses our current understanding. And again, dont forget your references.

[Jack]

One of the most interesting things I notice is this obsession with evidence. I appreciate and understand the importance of evidence as well as the next person. Doesn't mean I worship it and can't think for myself without evidence to post signboards leading me all the way to a conclusion. In the majority of cases evidence is neutral and can lead to different conclusions.

No one I know worships evidence. Evidence is what gives us a reason to believe one thing over another. Without any evidence all you're left with is the small data set that represents your personal knowledge, presumptions and intuition. In some cases that might be enough to lead to a reasonable conclusion. Do I really need to check every vehicle I get into for a bomb attached to the ignition? But in the case of someone whose life has been threatened more evidence will be required.

Theists want me to believe that there's a god who created everything, who demands my worship and obedience and who will punish me if I fail to accept his existence based solely on the word of his followers. They tell me he's intimately involved in my everyday life and has a plan that he expects me to follow.

Now I don't know about you, but when I'm presented with such a detailed and potentially life-altering concept, I expect more evidence than just the word of a believer. Back in my teens, when I was far more gullible and easily impressed, when I was less sure of my emotions, theist's arguments were able to sway me toward belief. I'm no longer that same person yet their arguments haven't changed a bit.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

No one I know worships evidence. Evidence is what gives us a reason to believe one thing over another. Without any evidence all you're left with is the small data set that represents your personal knowledge, presumptions and intuition. In some cases that might be enough to lead to a reasonable conclusion. Do I really need to check every vehicle I get into for a bomb attached to the ignition? But in the case of someone whose life has been threatened more evidence will be required.

Theists want me to believe that there's a god who created everything, who demands my worship and obedience and who will punish me if I fail to accept his existence based solely on the word of his followers. They tell me he's intimately involved in my everyday life and has a plan that he expects me to follow.

Now I don't know about you, but when I'm presented with such a detailed and potentially life-altering concept, I expect more evidence than just the word of a believer. Back in my teens, when I was far more gullible and easily impressed, when I was less sure of my emotions, theist's arguments were able to sway me toward belief. I'm no longer that same person yet their arguments haven't changed a bit.

the magnitude of the claim dictates the magnitude of the evidence. mundane claims require only mundane evidence. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Ken Carman]

To me belief is personal. I want no one else to believe anything. It's up to them what they accept, or not. they can believe whatever they want. (Actions, however, are different.) I suppose I would never make an good evangelist. To me ID is interesting to talk about, as long as it doesn't become a demand and we're all allowed to speculate whatever: from deity, to deities, to space aliens, whatever. Here's an interesting way to view ID: what if where we are today may have been influence like our development was influenced in the end of Battlestar Galactica, we're not talking Gods... though they may be perceived as such by primitives. Experimenting on us, or simply merging with us, could influence genetics. It would be "intelligent design," or at least intelligently skewed genetically speaking. It would also give evolution a longer time frame in which to play out.

Not a puppeteer concept, just influence. And I'm not claiming this ever happened for sure. But one of the ways we could be "designed," or the environment we live in by terraforming, or... so many possibilities.

So the idea there may have been some intelligence that has guided us, at least in one part of history, doesn't have to be Creationism. But if you're insisting it only be monotheistic, and one concept of that only, you're probably fooling no one. You're using the term ID as a cover for insisting others accept your faith, or at least in a shameful, dishonest manner.

[ElusiveTruth]

I believe you and I don't have to settle for a creation's beginnings so remote that any empiric confirmation is conveniently beyond the senses.

How can creation's beginning be anything but beyond the senses?

But obviously it resides within each of us as consciousness.

So consciousness created the universe? Interesting... more or less fits my own thoughts on the matter.

Is creation not being held in place at this moment for your examination into its workings as consciousness? A brain that, while awake, has all the appearances of producing "...the creation of a framework of Laws within which the universe freely unfolds within the boundaries of said Laws."

Is reality itself not also being held in place at this moment for my examination into its workings?

Something is in some way directing everything, from the smallest of quantum units to galaxies, to make up a universe of diverse interacting forms. What is doing this... and can this happen without something directing everything to take form?

Why should a sea of quantum units, form progressively bigger and more complex combinations that eventually become plants, human beings, planets and the entire universe?

Science is absolutely the best method to examine the operations and processes of the Universe. Science answers How and What... But the Why can not be found through science alone.

Truth is rarely appearing in a form pleasing to me either. But we can craft it into something that CAN be tolerated, eh?

Who says that the universe "accidentally popped into being" is true? Why should it be considered true that this universe is a singularity?

So why not analyze what is front of you creating the universes? Is it safer to look in the far past rather than the immediacy of personal consciousness?

When I think of Intelligent Design... a Consciousness is exactly what I attribute the creation of the universe to.

I think both of the usual sides debating ID are missing the elephant in the room that is consciousness...

That is generally true.

[ElusiveTruth]

You know I would agree that Intelligent Design has been hijacked, perhaps even started, as a philosophical cover for anti-evolution Creationism, but if one simply believes: really believes, that something out there may have guided these things... if by no other means than the way they developed... one could point to anecdotal "evidence" I suppose. That I have no problem with, personally. In fact, while I'm not sure about "guided," I do believe there's something out there, whatever that something (somethings?) may be. But I'm more of a mind that, if there is, it either started the ball rolling or helped it along. The rules, or principals, that guide these things may have been put in place by whatever we are talking about, or just naturally developed once the ball started rolling.

I agree with most of the above.

Here is what you have: something happened: in fact an impossible to imagine amount of somethings, but let's start with this Big Bang event. Who knows what went before that. I suspect as much or more than what has happened since: there's probably always been something. Once that event occurred, yes once can point to how they're connected: but they're connected because that's the way they happened. They could have occurred another way, minor differences, some quite major... maybe. So no matter what happened one could claim that "proves" ID. But logically, no it doesn't: it only proves something happened. Something happened doesn't prove who did something.

It depends on the situation but the fact that something happened can prove that somebody did it. Just because it isn't clear who did something does not mean that nobody did it.

The murders alone didn't prove OJ did it. Trayvon dying ALONE doesn't prove George did it.

No but if evidence suggests that there was murder... then somebody did it. Maybe no OJ or whoever but clearly somebody had a hand in it. Which is to say that it did not spontaneously happen from natural causes or through an innocent accident.

The events after are connected, perhaps, but connected because things developed along what we think was a logical, scientific, path.

Indeed... why would things progress along a "logical" path if no logic was involved in the process?

Now if we can get a DNA laced glove with God's DNA on it, George's gun, you might come closer. But first you'd have to sit God down and get a sample of his DNA, or have a lot of witnesses whose testimony doesn't keep shifting and isn't suspect who saw God do it and can point to him on a witness stand saying, "He did it!" The Bible won't do, for we'd have to prove he wrote it. He didn't, we did, though one could argue he "inspired it." That's pretty thin "proof" though. That's why a believer believes, why faith is important. And also why there are so many versions of it over time. Perhaps we're all listening, but hearing it a bit differently: a common human experience.

Hmmmm... most of the gods are far beyond fingerprinting.

I am much more interested in developments over time that will come to suggest the power and impact of consciousness on the world around us. In fact things will get most interesting when we have come to understand the brain enough to truly answer whether or not consciousness is a by-product of chemistry. Understanding consciousness is in my eyes the most likely means of finding evidence for or against gods.

[Ken Carman]

It depends on the situation but the fact that something happened can prove that somebody did it. Just because it isn't clear who did something does not mean that nobody did it.

Island with extremely intelligent ants get hit by what they would think of as a tidal wave. They claim their God Garbelfitch did it. Well, that's fine. Or maybe it's the fact that over time weather weathered a rock face on a nearby island and, eventually, it dropped. Wave. Drown. "Somebody" did it? Not necessarily. One could argue some deity for deities "allowed it," but that's not "proof." I would clarify your statement to "somebody," or "something." We can attempt to connect it, and as soon as God sits down for objective DNA etc. testing, maybe we might get closer. But honestly? I think there's a good reason why faith is so important to believers. This is probably it. If we are unable to make the leap maybe that's what God needs to know for sure. (Yeah, I know, "all knowing," and I would debate that but would take us off topic.)

Indeed... why would things progress along a "logical" path if no logic was involved in the process?

Maybe because we have applied "logic" to it after? One of my fav analogies is a sentient being on a methane planet who breathes methane and is quite different in other ways. Being says to itself, "Look at all this that keeps me alive! That proves Garblefetch created everything! And maybe he, or some other deity, does: but it, like us, is looking at an end result and making assumptions that may not be valid. Things happen: God or no God. That does not prove much but: something happened that led to this moment.

If things had happened some other way might some being declare that proves their beliefs are true? Yes, because we are always looking, and postulating, answers to our questions, but again... the happening only proves something happened.

We are dealing with logic here, and "B" doesn't necessarily follow "A" because we have chosen to the letters and how to think of those letters. What I am saying is, essentially, that this logic is a bit circular. Doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, just not valid "logic."

Hmmmm... most of the gods are far beyond fingerprinting.

Actually you go back to deities like Thor and the guy who rolled the rock back and forth there has been a lot of finger pointing. One could claim being kicked out of Eden, the pillar of salt affair and many slaughters in the Old might be "finger pointing." Job: a finger pointing "I dare you to prove..."

I am much more interested in developments over time that will come to suggest the power and impact of consciousness on the world around us. In fact things will get most interesting when we have come to understand the brain enough to truly answer whether or not consciousness is a by-product of chemistry. Understanding consciousness is in my eyes the most likely means of finding evidence for or against gods.

You may be right, though evidence is always up for interpretation. I suspect faith will always be a bit esoteric in nature, somewhat free form, despite attempts to nail it down either as "this and nothing else," or just "nothing." I suppose that's why of all the forums on V it appeals to me.

[ElusiveTruth]

How can you logically credit a process or thing with an action if you have no idea if a process or thing is capable of performing that action?

If you start by examing a process or thing and then deducing what could have cause the process or thing... you would obviously begin with the premise that the thing is capable of performing said process or thing. The question would therefore start of something like this... "What qualities would be needed for blah or blah to cause this process?" And thus the deduction begins.

We accept that we'll likely never be able to travel back in time and determine exactly how life began.

That is where deduction and logic comes into play... based on what we know and that which we can observe and examine... what are the possibilities with regards to how life and the universe began.

So instead, scientists conduct experiments to determine if nature is capable of producing the conditions under which life might have emerged. If they discover that nature is incapable of producing those conditions, or that the conditions that likely did exist at that time were not conducive to life beginning the way we theorize it might have, then obviously they'll need to consider alternative possibilities.

Upon what basis do they decide whether or not the experiments are accurate to the situation at the time? And just because they do come to an agreement on that... who is to say that they are correct?

Secondly if scientists can in a laboratory prove that nature produced conditions under which life emerged... why would that rule out the possibility of a being having played a hand in the creation of the conditions under which life emerged?

IF IDers want us to accept their claims as credible then they need to show that their designer possesses the capability to produce life.

In the same way the experiments show that natural processes don't require intelligent agents? Cause is it just me... or do intelligent human beings create the conditions of said experiments?

Kind of ironic... intelligent beings creating experiments to prove that intelligence plays no part in said experiments.

If it cannot, and the claim is only that it can design life once life exists, then it's being presented as an alternative to evolution and not as a possible explanation for the emergence of life.

In other words Evolution can only be natural processes that just happened to come together of their own accord?

Is it impossible that the mechanics of evolution were designed and set into motion by an intelligent agent?

But so far scientists are finding that life could have emerged naturally. So far there's no need to suppose unnatural factors were involved.

What unnatural factors would you be referring to?

And just because something could have happened one way does not constitute evidence that it definitely did happen that way.

An intelligent designer would be an unnatural factor, unless you're suggesting that this designer arose from the same process that produced life, a rather awkward opinion to defend. Just the existence of intelligence before life emerged is an indefensible assertion.

Science has yet to conclusively prove that consciousness is only the by-product of chemicals and the brain. In fact mainstream science rather enjoys ignoring findings and research that so much as suggest otherwise. I will readily admit that not all of the experiments might be completely up to the standards of mainstream science... but does that invalidate them completely. Why doesn't science take a closer look at such things?

As indefensible as the idea that a sea of quantum units mysteriously started following natural laws and somehow formed the systems that make up our universe and the lives that we experience today?

What about the singularity that brought about the existence of the universe? We are supposed to believe what? That a singularity just mysteriously happened out of nowhere? To me that is as ridiculous as sand on a beach making a majestic Disney sandcastle on its own. That would definitely be a singularity... and very, very, very, very, very unlikely.

If you can't define or describe the intelligent designer it could be anything, any nonsense can be presented as a possibility. This claim also supposes something that existed prior to and external from the universe. What evidence suggests such a thing exists or existed?

What evidence suggests that a universe came into existence from nothing? That makes far less sense to me.

And not just any nonsense can be presented as a plausible possibility. The more defined the less likely for in truth we do not have reference points upon which we can properly define such a being. This however in no way means that the existence of the being is impossible. The existence of such a being does not hinge on our ability to describe him.... he would be completely independent of something so trivial.

It is like saying that the effects of gravity hinge on our ability to detect and explain them. There is absolutely no such connection. Explanations do not play a part in the cause and effect of events and phenomena. No of course gravity is readily visible and evident... but the principle behind the argument does not change. The explanation is just that... an explanation.

Then it's of no use to us in our attempt to understand the universe or origin of life.

Just because one believes that a supreme being made the universe doesn't mean that they may not explore how the universe operates.

Because he and his buddy Dembski are the authors and primary proponents of the current ID movement. He's the source of all the claims being made in support of ID. If his basic presumptions are bogus then the conclusions he makes based on them are bogus as well.

My intention in the thread was actually to explore many of the "possible" form Intelligent Design could take... not just the forms of one movement which I actually don't even know much about.