Exploring Intelligent Design

[ElusiveTruth]

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."

[Angry Citizen]

Intelligent Design is creationism wrapped in the guise of pseudo-science. It attempts to apply information theory to biology to create a "marketable" idea that can then be pushed into scientific classrooms as a last-ditch effort to keep religion in America.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

\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.

Good, then we can dispense with that part of the nonsense...

How do you define and understand Intelligent Design?

Exactly the same as its proponents. See, for example, below.

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

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.

Squirm away from it? Hardly. Intelligent design is bunk - in any quantitative or qualitative sense, it is unscientific nonsense. Period.

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?

Again, I define "intelligent design," exactly as its proponents do. Said proponents suggest the following problems with evolution:
(1) An undirected chance hypothesis is insufficient to produce diverse life forms observed today (see definition, above)
(2) Evolution is incapable of leading to increases in genetic content and/or diversity

As answers to those points, I offer the following:
(1) Evolution is not "undirected chance," and claiming it is so is equivocation.
(2) Increases in genetic diversity and content happen by already known mechanisms to molecular biologists, and are entirely consistent with evolution.
(3) Every attempt made to "prove," intelligent design is present (see the work of Dembski, et al.) is both mathematically flawed and proven to be absolutely and unequivocably wrong.

For citations directed at all of the above, and proof that they are unequivocably true, see on these forums: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/scien...design-11.html

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, nor is it supported by any evidence. You may as well call it creationism, agree that it's unsupported, and go home.

[crimethinker]

What's wrong with the theory of evolution? Think of it like a game of Yahtzee. If you throw billions of dice (and there are as many planets in the Milky Way, let alone the 'billions and billions' of other galaxies), you'll get a few Yahtzees. The evidence for this theory is the whole of the scientific franchise. They, scientists, hold expertise in these areas; the Pope and his lackeys do not.

Religious people define what they believe in? A white-bearded man in the sky, is that right? The atheist definition of "what they believe" is a lot more precise than that of religious folk. They (scientists) measure things, they quantify them, they form hypotheses and test them. Religious folk do no such thing. Their hypothesis is "Goddunnit". I don't find that very compelling.

[ElusiveTruth]

What's wrong with the theory of evolution?

As such there is nothing wrong with the theory. Furthermore it in no way opposes the concept of intelligent design.

Think of it like a game of Yahtzee. If you throw billions of dice (and there are as many planets in the Milky Way, let alone the 'billions and billions' of other galaxies), you'll get a few Yahtzees. The evidence for this theory is the whole of the scientific franchise. They, scientists, hold expertise in these areas; the Pope and his lackeys do not.

How does this relate to Intelligent Design?

I get the general drift of what you are trying to say but I fail to see what you are specifically referring to.

Religious people define what they believe in? A white-bearded man in the sky, is that right?

Yes... it is quite easy to be skeptical about something as idiotic but well defined as a white-bearded man in the sky. For the record I don't know which religious person mentioned a white-bearded man in the sky. I personally do not believe in a white-bearded man in the sky... though I do think there may be such a man on a planet somewhere in the cosmos. Technically in relation to us that would mean that he would be a white-bearded man in our sky. At any rate... yes to a certain degree religious people do define what they believe in.

The atheist definition of "what they believe" is a lot more precise than that of religious folk. They (scientists) measure things, they quantify them, they form hypotheses and test them. Religious folk do no such thing. Their hypothesis is "Goddunnit". I don't find that very compelling.

Are you trying to say that all atheists are scientists and that all scientists are atheists? Furthermore what do their scientific hypotheses and so forth have to do with a definition of what one believes in? Last but not least... how does any of this relate to Intelligent Design and my original post?

[crimethinker]

As such there is nothing wrong with the theory. Furthermore it in no way opposes the concept of intelligent design.

How does this relate to Intelligent Design?

It relates to ID in that ID is unnecessary for us to exist because evolution and the Big Bang theory, etc., explain that existence. Thus, ID is something its proponents are trying to tack on to the actual science for no reason other than that it suits their religious agenda. Maybe we can't full-out disprove ID, but it's wholly unnecessary for us to understand life on Earth, and it has negative credibility.

Yes... it is quite easy to be skeptical about something as idiotic but well defined as a white-bearded man in the sky.

Sure is. Also see the cosmic Jewish zombie and Young Earth creationism.

Are you trying to say that all atheists are scientists and that all scientists are atheists? Furthermore what do their scientific hypotheses and so forth have to do with a definition of what one believes in? Last but not least... how does any of this relate to Intelligent Design and my original post?

No, although most scientists in the fields that relate to the Big Questions of our existence are atheists. I'm saying that scientists -- those qualified to answer the questions of our existence -- by and large have no belief in God(s), and they're the ones with the tools and educations to answer these questions. They've not arrived at the conclusion Goddunnit, and as our scientific knowledge expands, that will increasingly be the case.

If you can't see how any of this relates to ID, I... don't know what to tell you.

[finder]

What's wrong with the theory of evolution? Think of it like a game of Yahtzee. If you throw billions of dice (and there are as many planets in the Milky Way, let alone the 'billions and billions' of other galaxies), you'll get a few Yahtzees. The evidence for this theory is the whole of the scientific franchise. They, scientists, hold expertise in these areas; the Pope and his lackeys do not.

How many "yahtzees" have been rolled besides Earth?

Religious people define what they believe in? A white-bearded man in the sky, is that right?

No.

The atheist definition of "what they believe" is a lot more precise than that of religious folk. They (scientists) measure things, they quantify them, they form hypotheses and test them. Religious folk do no such thing. Their hypothesis is "Goddunnit". I don't find that very compelling.

Please explain precisely how you arrived here today as a result of a cosmic "Yahtzee" of some kind and precisely why we do not observe it happening here anymore nor anywhere we are able to look? Remember, precisely explain your theories. Broad references will not do.

[ElusiveTruth]

It relates to ID in that ID is unnecessary for us to exist because evolution and the Big Bang theory, etc., explain that existence. Thus, ID is something its proponents are trying to tack on to the actual science for no reason other than that it suits their religious agenda. Maybe we can't full-out disprove ID, but it's wholly unnecessary for us to understand life on Earth, and it has negative credibility.

Are you saying that because Intelligent Design is unnecessary for us to exist... it therefore does not exist?
I have yet to see a supposed lack of necessity being used as evidence against something. I hope you can come up with better arguments cause I'm not convinced by a pointless argument like that. I can't even nod my head and appreciate such an argument... it has 0 merit.

Sure is. Also see the cosmic Jewish zombie and Young Earth creationism.

Great we agree. Now then... let us move on from this little greeting or whatever it was supposed to be. We can cross out the definitions you have brought up so far. They are indeed nonsense.

No, although most scientists in the fields that relate to the Big Questions of our existence are atheists. I'm saying that scientists -- those qualified to answer the questions of our existence -- by and large have no belief in God(s), and they're the ones with the tools and educations to answer these questions.

Oh wonderful. I am truly astonished and pleasantly surprised to hear that the age old question is soon to be answered as hordes of well equipped scientists prepare to reveal the stunning truth. No doubt they have mountains of evidence prepared to prove once and for all that there is no God. Intelligent Design has been completely crushed with a fatal blow.

Anyway jokes aside... how exactly does your claim that scientists are mostly atheists and best qualified(very debatable) to answer the Big Questions... constitute evidence against Intelligent Design? I have yet to be enlightened.

They've not arrived at the conclusion Goddunnit, and as our scientific knowledge expands, that will increasingly be the case.

So... because so far scientists have not arrived at the conclusion that Goddunit, as you so succinctly put it, Intelligent Design is impossible and has been ruled out? Can you perhaps enlighten me with the knowledge thus far that supports such a... claim.

If you can't see how any of this relates to ID, I... don't know what to tell you.

I can not see, my dear friend, how any of this puts the question and possibility of Intelligent Design to rest.

[crimethinker]

How many "yahtzees" have been rolled besides Earth?

Perhaps one day we'll find out. The universe is billions of light-years long. Do you understand how immense that is? Grain of sand on a beach and all that. Tell me, does it make any sense at all for God to make such an immense universe but leave it completely empty, save for a bunch of mammals on a planet they call Earth, who show up billions of years after its formation? This doesn't suggest order to me, it suggests... well, the scientific explanation.

No.

I don't know about that. I googled "God" and that's what I got.

Please explain precisely how you arrived here today as a result of a cosmic "Yahtzee" of some kind and precisely why we do not observe it happening here anymore nor anywhere we are able to look? Remember, precisely explain your theories. Broad references will not do.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB020.html

I'm not going to go through the full history of how I got here. Big Bang, Earth formation, abiogenesis, hundreds of millions of years of evolution, two people falling in love, etc.

[finder]

Perhaps one day we'll find out. The universe is billions of light-years long. Do you understand how immense that is? Grain of sand on a beach and all that. Tell me, does it make any sense at all for God to make such an immense universe but leave it completely empty, save for a bunch of mammals on a planet they call Earth, who show up billions of years after its formation? This doesn't suggest order to me, it suggests... well, the scientific explanation.

So you're saying the precise, "scientific franchise" you previously were boasting about is grounded in faith?

I don't know about that. I googled "God" and that's what I got.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB020.html

I'm not going to go through the full history of how I got here. Big Bang, Earth formation, abiogenesis, hundreds of millions of years of evolution, two people falling in love, etc.

So much for the precise scientific angle.

[crimethinker]

Are you saying that because Intelligent Design is unnecessary for us to exist... it therefore does not exist?
I have yet to see a supposed lack of necessity being used as evidence against something. I hope you can come up with better arguments cause I'm not convinced by a pointless argument like that. I can't even nod my head and appreciate such an argument... it has 0 merit.

ID being unnecessary doesn't discredit it? So if I say there's a 10-foot-tall primate living in the Himilayas, and you can't disprove it, it's creditable? No. I have to prove it, as you have to prove ID. Evolution and the Big Bang theory are proven.

Oh wonderful. I am truly astonished and pleasantly surprised to hear that the age old question is soon to be answered as hordes of well equipped scientists prepare to reveal the stunning truth. No doubt they have mountains of evidence prepared to prove once and for all that there is no God. Intelligent Design has been completely crushed with a fatal blow.

Can't really prove a negative, which is why I'm an agnostic atheist -- though a strong atheist for all actual intents and purposes.

Anyway jokes aside... how exactly does your claim that scientists are mostly atheists and best qualified(very debatable) to answer the Big Questions... constitute evidence against Intelligent Design? I have yet to be enlightened.

Really? It seems irrelevant to you that those who would know about the origin of the universe and life on Earth don't believe in god(s) or ID, but their own proven natural explanations?

So... because so far scientists have not arrived at the conclusion that Goddunit, as you so succinctly put it, Intelligent Design is impossible and has been ruled out? Can you perhaps enlighten me with the knowledge thus far that supports such a... claim.

Sure, it's possible. Anything is possible, given certain natural laws. I'm saying it's unnecessary, and in fact, there is a bit to discredit the God-theory, such as the vastness and emptiness of the universe, or the fact that God has never shown -- proven -- his existence to us, except once two thousand years ago at a remote location.

[crimethinker]

So you're saying the precise, "scientific franchise" you previously were boasting about is grounded in faith?

What? No, I'm saying there are as of yet limits to what we can discover. Give us time. Jesus.