Is Intelligent Design dead?

[Meleagar]

Intelligent Design and Creationism are two different things.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: PlatoNot I am not an IDist. I am a former Christian school administrator and ID was never taught in my schools. I really don't even like what they are about. I think they do damage to the Christian religion by moving its tenets into the realm of science They should be held above that. The very act of placing them into this environment seems to suggest they are true not because they are the Word of God, but because they stand up to scientific scrutiny. Certainly, those tenets will come under attack by true scientists and charletans alike regardless, but they have stood for centuries and will stand to the end of time.

The theory of intelligent design doesn't "move" any Christian tenets into the realm of science, because it isn't a relgious doctrine, nor does it make any religious assertions.

[PlatoNot]

Quote by: Meleagar The theory of intelligent design doesn't "move" any Christian tenets into the realm of science, because it isn't a relgious doctrine, nor does it make any religious assertions.

Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not wish to debate what other creationists do. God knows there are enough atheists for that.

[tengers]

Quote by: PlatoNot It is indeed refreshing to hear someone from the scientific community being honest, especially honest in admissions of what they do not know. Assumptions are just that assumptions whether they be "scientific" or creationist. They carry no weight whatsoever, but merely provide a basis by which to observe and interpret evidence. If all the evidence can be shown to support the assumption then and only then can it move to the theory status. Of course some are satisfied with a preponderance of the evidence supporting their assumption before calling it a theory. If a significant number of their peers are willing to do the same then the theory might survive. All the observable evidence in the universe supports creation. And yes we do consider it fact. The Big Bang goes awry with its assumption of a singularity. There is precious little evidence available in the universe to support an infinite compression of the entire universe. Infinite compression was thrown into the mix to eliminate any particle movement and hence time. In fact infinite compression really means it did not exist just as time did not exist. That sir, is exactly what creationism teaches. As to the "Gods in the volcano" reference it makes more sense than infinite compression. In either case an acceptance moves us into the realm of the supernatural. There are no problems with creation other than God. Since the cause and effect model has proven that something always existed, it is just as logical and hence scientific to believe that something was God as it is to believe it was just an unknown entity. In the scientific realm, something had to act upon the singularity to cause it to decompress. Since science cannot prove a singularity actually existed, how is it going to prove what acted upon it to engender decompression? I suggest you let ID creationists set forth their own motives rather than assigning malicious ones to them. Could it not have been that ID creationists saw their children taught such an unsubstantiated and preposterous theory as the Big Bang which threatened what they wanted their children to believe and so developed ID as a defensive measure and not an offensive thrust to impose their beliefs on the world? I am not an IDist. I am a former Christian school administrator and ID was never taught in my schools. I really don't even like what they are about. I think they do damage to the Christian religion by moving its tenets into the realm of science They should be held above that. The very act of placing them into this environment seems to suggest they are true not because they are the Word of God, but because they stand up to scientific scrutiny. Certainly, those tenets will come under attack by true scientists and charletans alike regardless, but they have stood for centuries and will stand to the end of time.

Plato, I generally do not engage with people of religion on matters of science or politics unless that group chooses to enter that arena and impose their views on others through force of some type. I rarely get involved in religious discussions, except on a comparitive belief basis. Thus I oppose Islamization, Zionism, Christian Missionaries and the like, but do not oppose Christian hospitals that do charitable work without strings, where the act of charity is a requirement of their religion. I also support freedom of religion and believe that religions have a right to found schools and educate children per State standards and include a religion class in their day, as they do in Catholic schools. Religion is necessary for some people and the center of their lives for many. I knew several Buddhist monks in my life and did not see that they did anyone any harm. I also respect the Amish for their choice, but on the whole, I am drawn to the world of the sciences and liberal arts and I see a continuity in the world from the prehistoric cave artists to the builders of the Hubble spacecraft. They were both studying the same thing. I distrust evangelicals a might, more than others for the simple reason that they will pick up the sword, their sword is a bit more subtle than the sword of Islam, but it is there just the same. There is plenty of room in this world for a variety of views, and I generally try to aim to keep it that way, if that makes sense.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: PlatoNot Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I do not wish to debate what other creationists do. God knows there are enough atheists for that.

This is the theory of intelligent design:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

You might want to extend your information about a subject beyond "Wikipedia" before commenting on it. There are no religious aspects to the above theory, nor does it import any Christian tenets.

One of the apparent "rebuttal devices" of those who oppose ID is to conflate it with "creationism" in order to advance the notion that it is a religoius doctrine (which was the case at the Dover trial).

In addition to that link, here is a list of frequently-raised weak and erroneous arguments and accusations about ID. From the faq:

5] Intelligent Design is “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo” In fact, the two theories are radically different. Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based. Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. We notice the “forward” approach in Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Anselm. Augustine described it best with the phrase, “faith seeking understanding.” With these thinkers, the investigation was faith-based. By contrast, we discover the “backward” orientation in Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley. Aristotle’s argument, which begins with “motion in nature” and reasons BACK to a “prime mover” — i.e. from effect to its “best” causal explanation — is obviously empirically based.

[tengers]

Meleagar, the Christian Right founded the modern ID movement and without them and their financing, there would be no organized ID ism in the modern context. There indeed may be Id'ers who actually believe in the concept of there being an intelligence out there that is not the Christian God, but for the most part, ID'ers use the ID movement to try and counter "Big Bangers" and atheists and inject Christian views into politics and government because they were cut off at the pass by bthe supreme Court. The Prime Mover goes by a variety of names, but Jesus gets you most of the money.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: tengers Meleagar, the Christian Right founded the modern ID movement and without them and their financing, there would be no organized ID ism in the modern context.

Who was talking about "the modern ID movement"?

[tengers]

Quote by: Meleagar Who was talking about "the modern ID movement"?

If you want to talk about Plato and the Deimurge, fine, then we'll talk about that, but if people talk about ID, that's the stuff of the 1980's Christian right. I think the word is teleogical for the other.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: tengers If you want to talk about Plato and the Deimurge, fine, then we'll talk about that, but if people talk about ID, that's the stuff of the 1980's Christian right. I think the word is teleogical for the other.

I was talking about ID theory, not the "ID Movement".

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Meleagar I'll take the blue pill, Morpheus. That's my provisionally held perspective of how active information is injected into the evolutionary process. So?

So it's a debate killer. We have irreconcilably different values. It's like one side is playing poker and the other side is playing Go Fish.

I could present more evidence for evolution and back up what I said earlier with quantum mechanics, but that is futile. You don't care. Likewise I could care less as to why this makes you feel happy. I have no idea why believing this gives you entertainment and that cozy slightly plastic blue pill feeling. Do I want to know?

If one side is playing Go Fish and the other is playing poker the logical thing to do is to debate which game we should be playing. However the disanalogy here is that it's not that simple; to change rulesets I'll need to experience something that forces me to give up on logic or you'll need to experience something that gives you reason to try.

Your move.

[tengers]

Quote by: Meleagar I was talking about ID theory, not the "ID Movement".

I think the ID Movement (read Christian Right) created the ID Theory to work around the US Supreme Court rulings. That being said, by me, admittedly, I guess I'll just ask, are you simply stating that there is something out there that is figuring this all out and has the power to change or create things, as opposed to everything happening in the Universe by some sort of non-intelligent/ and or natural process, as espoused by many in the science community. If so, what powers do you envision that this Intelligent Designer (which could be us, I suppose) has?

[Sue53]

Whilst enjoying a wonderful holiday in the Lake District I dipped into a book taken along by my sister. What Darwin Didn't Know by Geoffrey S. Simmons. I defy anyone, with an open mind, to remain a stout atheist at the end of it, or even half-way through.

An open mind is the key.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Sue53 Whilst enjoying a wonderful holiday in the Lake District I dipped into a book taken along by my sister. What Darwin Didn't Know by Geoffrey S. Simmons. I defy anyone, with an open mind, to remain a stout atheist at the end of it, or even half-way through. An open mind is the key.

What didn't Darwin know?

I would dearly like to know it. Mel's gotten boring.

[barts]

Quote by: Meleagar Intelligent Design and Creationism are two different things.

They are exactly the same thing.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: Thanatos So it's a debate killer.

It's a tangential expression of a provisional viewpoint. My argument about ID is based on evidence and logical inference. ID doesn't make any claims about "what is doing the designing" (other than in cases of human and animal ID), so my view on that is entirely irrelevant to any debate about ID.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: tengers I think the ID Movement (read Christian Right) created the ID Theory to work around the US Supreme Court rulings.

And I think it is not. So? Argue the merits of the theory, not the motivations of those who have presented it.

That being said, by me, admittedly, I guess I'll just ask, are you simply stating that there is something out there that is figuring this all out and has the power to change or create things, as opposed to everything happening in the Universe by some sort of non-intelligent/ and or natural process, as espoused by many in the science community. If so, what powers do you envision that this Intelligent Designer (which could be us, I suppose) has?

The theory is above. Familiarize yourself with it. You might also read the faq I linked to to avoid long-since answered questions and misconceptions.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Intelligent design is a subset of creationism. There are all sorts of creationisms, e.g. young-earth creationism, progressive creationism, old earth creationism, theistic evolution, Hindu creationism, Islamic creationism, and heaven knows how many versions of creationism that center on the beliefs of indigenous groups from around the world.

Intelligent design is one of these types. Fortunately, we don't have to wonder about motives, objectives, or goals; we have a library full of documents and such from ID creationists themselves, wherein they directly and repeatedly say "Intelligent design is a religious crusade against evolution". Oftentimes they even specify that ID creationism is about the Christian God. See the OP for one famous example.

Meleagar is doing exactly what I described earlier with the analogy of the sidewalk Rolex watch salesman. Even though we've heard the salesman saying "I'm ripping people off", we've found several documents of his describing his plans for ripping people off, and we can look for ourselves and see that the watches are fake, Meleagar keeps insisting "But look at his sign. It says he's not ripping you off."

Fortunately, I don't think anyone here is buying any watches.

[Jack]

ID doesn't make any claims about "what is doing the designing"

Just to be clear, you don't make such claims, but the classic presentation of ID by Behe, Dembski and the Discovery Institute have made it clear that their idea of a designer is the Christian god. I don't see how anyone who has read the transcripts of the Dover trial, Behe's books or Dembski's writings or any page of the Discovery Institute's website could doubt that.

The common arguments against ID that have been presented on the internet and in books over the last couple of years are directed toward the form of ID as championed by Behe and the rest.

Still, by using concepts like irreducible complexity in common with Behe, the same arguments against his usage of that concept would apply to your usage of it.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

The funny thing is, the FAQ Meleagar wants us to read is written by the same people (the Discovery Institute) who wrote the Wedge Strategy that says ID seeks to replace science "with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".

Huh. Now why would the same organization say one one had that ID is all about promoting Christianity and on the other say it has nothing to do with religion?

I wonder.......

[Jack]

Their attempt to obfuscate the issues by setting up "independent" websites supposedly dedicated to "real" scientific research is well known.

The Discovery Institute has registered over two hundred website domain names.[40] More than a dozen are related to the institute's campaigns promoting intelligent design. The use of these sites is often in conjunction other intelligent design-related sites registered and operated by Discovery Institute Fellows and associates. William Dembski, for example, registered and operates UncommonDescent.com, OverwhelmingEvidence.com, and DesignInference.com while the institute's Casey Luskin set up IdeaCenter.org; all link to each other.

Discovery Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia