I would simply say that that definition is highly vague and inaccurate.
I have a good definition in some textbooks at home. I've taken classes on this subject. I'll try to scrounge up a good definition. ID in itself does not have one specific definition, but it has many more defining features that you and MW are not discerning.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
That IS incompatible with evolution actually, Bardock. Evolution specifically rejects a discernable designing intelligence.Intelligent Design is an area that, fairly much, has set beliefs, a recent construction that has come together over the last 20 years, and part of that construction has always directly specified that it contradicts natural selection.
If you are trying to use a different definition... then you arenot talking about intelligent design, but something else entirely.
I don't think evolution states anything about a designing intelligence. I am not an expert on it, I had it in School for a year and read some on the Internet, but I never came across Evolution actively rejecting a designer. I hope you don't mind if I not just take your word for it, maybe you could send me some pages to read up on?
[edit] Oh and I'd appreciate if you did send me the definitions you have, I'd be very interested, Ordo.
Yes, the theory of evolution by natural selection does indeed reject a designing intelligence. To quote Dawkins:
"[natural selection] has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all."
Feel free to go read his books.
Meanwhile, the use of the term 'Intelligent Design' that everyone uses in the modern day is part of a concept that, as I say, specifically rejects natural selection, and therefore is completely incompatible with evolution.
Like I say, it has only been created as part of a plan to say that there is objective evidence for a higher being. That is literally the reason why ID exists today. As 'God uses evolution as a tool' does NOT fit into that, because that would not be showing any such evidence, Intelligent Design as a concept today would not eixst if that was what was being proposed. It's very existence therefore shows your error.
Any other use of the term is a complete waste of time, because it is not what anyone else is talking about- anyone else important, I mean. Which is to say, the media, the scientists, the religious proponents, the courts and the Government.
Sure. A good way to start might be this.
Science rejects Creationism, which is a dogma created around the existance of a creator. Evolution doesn't reject the idea of a creator itself, but it does reject Creationism, because its non- and anti-scientific.
Likewise, an Intelligent designer is just a codename for Creator while Intelligent design is just a codeword for Creationism. We can apply the same model, rejecting the dogma wile allowing the possibility of a divine force intitation natural selection.
It is the interference with natural selection in both creationism and ID that is unacceptable.
That is more what I'm trying to say. You're focusing on the dude, not the dogma. They're a package deal in ID.
But Intelligent Design and Creationism are surely not the same.
I also don't think that Science rejects, things where no evidence is for, it just does not bother itself with it.
As for the Darwin quote, that also doesn't reject a creator. That say evolution and natural selection has no mind, it does not comment on something that might not be evolution and it does not comment on why evolution exists.
Well, I am sorry I don't really want to argue about it if you don't mind, I get too excited in a long debate.
Defintitions of Intelligent Design are easy! The organisation mostly responsible for propogating it is the Discovery Institute. Their definition reads:
"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. "
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign
Originally posted by UshgarakBut doesn't that almost outright say that other certain features (those they are not referring to) are explained by undirected process and natural selection?
Defintitions of Intelligent Design are easy! The organisation mostly responsible for propogating it is the Discovery Institute. Their definition reads:"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. "
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign
Originally posted by Bardock42
But Intelligent Design and Creationism are surely not the same.I also don't think that Science rejects, things where no evidence is for, it just does not bother itself with it.
As for the Darwin quote, that also doesn't reject a creator. That say evolution and natural selection has no mind, it does not comment on something that might not be evolution and it does not comment on why evolution exists.
Well, I am sorry I don't really want to argue about it if you don't mind, I get too excited in a long debate.
Dawkins quote.
And it does reject any worthwhile definition of intelligent process associated with the design mechanic of evolution. it therefore specifically rejects the definition you provided which says thart all life was created by something intelligent. Again- it specifically contradicts this. I worrty if yuo do not see this, as it is rather basic.
But in any case what you provided was not a useful or relevant definition of intelligent design. The concept of ID talked about today is, as I have now said many times, set up in DIRECT opposition to evolution in roder to try and make out there is evidence for a higher power, and therefore for God. Anything that is not doing that is not ID as talked about today. Evolution does not do that. Therefore- direct incompatibility.
Originally posted by Bardock42
But doesn't that almost outright say that other certain features (those they are not referring to) are explained by undirected process and natural selection?
I basically have no idea what you mean by saying that, though you do seem to be getting masively off the point. Stick to the point- it specifically rejects natural selection (it says so right there!), which therefore specifically rejects evolution. Nothing else is relevant because the case ends there.
To quote the same people btw, on whether they contradict evolution:
"However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges."
Originally posted by UshgarakIt rejects universial natural selection. It implies that natural selection does exist. How much is natural selection is one difference between intelligent design groups, I believe. That's how I take that definition anyways, do you know what I mean?
I basically have no idea what you mean by saying that, though you do seem to be getting masively off the point. Stick to the point- it specifically rejects natural selection (it says so right there!), which therefore specifically rejects evolution. Nothing else is relevant because the case ends there.
Well, seeing what they say immediately afterwards, your interpretation is wrong.
As should have been patently obvious anyway, as by rejecting natural selection as that statement did it was already contradicting evolution, game over.
Quite why you couldn't see that what they meant by "certain features of the universe and of living things " was everything that evolution was talking about is beyond me. You do take up very obscure positions.
Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Some of it is. Some of it isn't.You're thinking like someone who takes every aspect of the Bible literally.
So then you admit that there are aspects of the Bible's teachings that simply can't be applied completely because in [b]today's
age, they're not practical?And by the way, I have bad vision, so if you could please be so kind as to not use such a dark text I'd appreciate it, at least when talking directly to me. 🙂
Dark blue is hard for me to read when it's against a black background. It literally hurts. [/B]
Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Some of it is. Some of it isn't.You're thinking like someone who takes every aspect of the Bible literally.
I don’t take every aspect of the Bible literally just where the context calls for it. For example, Jesus said that if your eye causes you to sin pluck it out. This is not meant to be taking literally. God does not want you to harm or maim yourself. So, I take the Bible literally as much as is practical and possible based on the context. The context will let you know whether to take the Scripture literally or symbolically.
So then you admit that there are aspects of the Bible's teachings that simply can't be applied completely because in [b]today's
age, they're not practical? [/b]
No, I am saying that there are certain laws that do not apply to the believer today that applied to the children of Israel such as dietary laws, the animal-sacrificial system that they were under, etc.
And by the way, I have bad vision, so if you could please be so kind as to not use such a dark text I'd appreciate it, at least when talking directly to me. 🙂
Dark blue is hard for me to read when it's against a black background. It literally hurts.
Why do you have a black background?
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It depends on what your definition of creationism is.If you understand creationism to mean "there was a creator" then it can certainly exist alongside evolution.
No it cannot because according to the Bible God did not use evolutionary process to create the first humans. God created both male and female human beings fully formed, not single-celled organisms.