Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design Theory says that “intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable” (William Dembski, Intelligent Design, Downer’s Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1999, p. 106).

Certain biological features defy the standard Darwinian “random-chance” explanation. They appear to have been designed. Since design logically necessitates an intelligent designer, the appearance of design is cited as evidence for a Designer. There are three primary arguments in the Intelligent Design Theory: (1) irreducible complexity, (2) specified complexity, and (3) the anthropic principle.

(1) Irreducible complexity is defined by Michael Behe in his book "Darwin's Black Box" as "...a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Simply put, life is comprised of intertwined parts that rely on each other in order to be useful. Random mutation may account for the development of a new part, but it cannot account for the concurrent development of multiple parts necessary for a functioning system. For example, the human eye is obviously a very useful system. Without the eyeball (which is itself an irreducibly complex system), the optic nerve, and the visual cortex, a randomly mutated eye would actually be counterproductive to the survival of a species, and would therefore be eliminated through the process of natural selection. An eye is not a useful system unless all its parts are present and functioning properly at the same time.

(2) Specified complexity is the concept that since specified complex patterns can be found in organisms, that some form of guidance must have accounted for their origination. The specified complexity argument states that it is impossible for complex patterns to be developed through random processes. For example, a room filled with 100 monkeys and 100 typewriters may eventually produce a few words, or maybe even a sentence, but it would never produce a Shakespearean play. And how much more complex is biological life than a Shakespearean play?

(3) The anthropic principle states that the world and universe are "fine-tuned" to allow for life on earth. If the ratio of elements in the air of the earth was altered slightly, many species would very quickly cease to exist. If the earth were a few miles closer or further away from the sun, many species would cease to exist. The existence and development of life on earth requires so many variables to be perfectly in tune that it would be impossible for all the variables to come into being through random, uncoordinated events.

While the Intelligent Design Theory doesn’t presume to identify the source of intelligence (whether it be God or UFOs, etc.), the vast majority of Intelligent Design Theorists are Theists. They see the appearance of design which pervades the biological world as evidence for the existence of God. There are however a few Atheists who can’t deny the strong evidence for design, but aren’t willing to acknowledge a Creator God. They tend to interpret the data as evidence that earth was seeded by some sort of master race of extraterrestrial creatures (space aliens).

The Intelligent Design Theory is not Biblical Creationism. There is an important distinction between the two positions. Biblical Creationists begin with a conclusion: that the Biblical account of creation is reliable and correct; that life on Earth was designed by an Intelligent Agent (God). They then look for evidence from the natural realm to support this conclusion. Intelligent Design Theorists begin with the natural realm and reach their conclusion subsequently: that life on Earth was designed by an Intelligent Agent (whoever that might be).

www.gotquestions.org/intelligent-design.html

Intelligent design (ID) is an anti-evolution belief that asserts that naturalistic explanations of some biological entities are not possible and such entities can only be explained by intelligent causes.* Advocates of ID maintain that their belief is scientific and provides empirical proof for the existence of God or superintelligent aliens. They claim that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom as an alternative to the science of evolution. ID is essentially a hoax, however, since evolution is consistent with a belief in an intelligent designer of the universe. The two are not contradictory and they are not necessarily competitors. ID is proposed mainly by Christian apologists at the Discovery Institute and their allies, who feel science threatens their Biblical-based view of reality.

http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

cdesign proponentsists (sic)

Uh.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t418462.html

It is important to distinguish between the terms "science" and "scientific community." Science is a discipline concerned with observing, experimenting with, and explaining phenomena. The scientific community is composed of the living human persons who participate in this discipline. The distinction is important, because there is no logical contradiction between science and creationism. Science is a generic term for a type of study, while creationism is a philosophy applied to the interpretation of facts. The scientific community, as it exists today, holds naturalism as the preferred philosophy, but there is no overt reason why naturalism should be preferred by science over creationism.

In general, there is a perception that creationism is "unscientific." This is partly true, in the sense that creationism entails certain assumptions that cannot be tested, proven, or falsified. However, naturalism is in exactly the same predicament, as an untestable, unprovable, non-falsifiable philosophy. The facts discovered in scientific research are only that: facts. Facts and interpretations are two different things. The current scientific community rejects, in general, the concepts of creationism, and so they define it as "unscientific." This is highly ironic, given the scientific community's preference for an interpretive philosophy, naturalism, that is just as "unscientific" as creationism.

There are many reasons for this tendency towards naturalism in science. Creationism involves the intervention of a supernatural being; and science is primarily concerned with tangible and physical things. For this reason, some in the scientific community fear that creationism will lead to a "God of the Gaps" dilemma, where scientific questions are shrugged off by the explanation, "God did it." Experience has shown that this is not the case. Some of the greatest names in scientific history were staunch creationists. Their belief in God inspired them to ask, "How did God do it?" Among these names are Pascal, Maxwell, and Kelvin. On the other hand, an unreasonable commitment to naturalism can degrade scientific discovery. A naturalistic framework requires a scientist to ignore results that do not fit the established paradigm. That is, when new data does not correlate to the naturalistic view, it is assumed to be invalid and discarded.

There are distinct religious overtones to creationism. Science is only as objective as those who participate in it, and those persons are just as subject to bias as any other field. There are those who reject creationism in favor of naturalism purely for personal "moral" reasons. In fact, this number is probably much higher than would be admitted to. Most people who reject the concepts of God do so primarily because they disagree with some perceived restriction or unfairness, despite claims to the contrary, and this is as true for those in lab coats as those in coveralls.

In the same way, an unfriendly attitude in the scientific community has had its impact on the perception of creationism. Science has benefited from creationist contributors for centuries; yet today the scientific community, at large, takes a hostile and condescending attitude towards anyone who doesn't take a naturalistic perspective. This open hostility towards creationist views, and religion in general, creates a strong incentive for persons with those views to avoid scientific study. Those who do often feel compelled to remain silent for fear of ridicule. In this way, the scientific community has degraded and "pushed out" a segment of the population, and then had the audacity to claim that a lowered percentage of creationists in their ranks is evidence of naturalism's superior scientific merit.

There are also political reasons for the scientific community's hostility towards creationism and religion in general. Christianity, more so than any other religious system, places immense value on every individual human life. This causes tensions with the scientific community when that concern for life gets in the way of some type of scientific process. Christian values tend to act as a brake on experiments or position that cause harm to people, or destroy or damage human life. Examples include embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and euthanasia. In other cases, Christian values butt heads with secular ones when science promotes certain sinful activities by making them easier. While naturalistic scientists may see this as an unnecessary hindrance, they should consider what happens when scientific research is conducted with no regard for morality or conscience. Echoing this idea was actor Jeff Goldblum's character in the movie Jurassic Park. He stated, "your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

There is also a level of competition between the scientific community and the religious community over power, producing additional tensions between science and creationism. As even some leading skeptic scientists have admitted, there is a tendency for the scientific community to position itself, even subconsciously, as a priesthood. This secular priesthood has the wondrous and elite knowledge that the laymen need for salvation, and cannot be questioned by any outsiders. In plain terms, religiously-tinged ideas, such as creationism, impinge on the scientific community's claim to superior knowledge of the universe.

While there may be many reasons for tension between the scientific community and creationism, there are plenty of reasons why they should be able to coexist peacefully. There are no logically valid reasons to reject creationism in favor of naturalism, as the scientific community has done. Creationism does not inhibit discovery, as evidenced by the titans of science who believed strongly in it. The derisive attitude spewed at Creationists has diminished the number of capable and willing minds in many fields.

www.gotquestions.org/science-creationism.html

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Uh.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t418462.html

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Uh.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t418462.html

😕

Originally posted by ushomefree

While the Intelligent Design Theory doesn’t presume to identify the source of intelligence (whether it be God or UFOs, etc.), the vast majority of Intelligent Design Theorists are Theists. They see the appearance of design which pervades the biological world as evidence for the existence of God. There are however a few Atheists who can’t deny the strong evidence for design, but aren’t willing to acknowledge a Creator God. They tend to interpret the data as evidence that earth was seeded by some sort of master race of extraterrestrial creatures (space aliens).

Funny thing that, as there is as much proof of God (in respect to being the 'father' of creation) as there is of aliens.

Also, let's just say I.D. is correct in principle and that "intelligence" doing the designing is in fact God, which version of God is it?

Originally posted by Robtard
Funny thing that, as there is as much proof of God (in respect to being the 'father' of creation) as there is of aliens.

In respect to the Cosmos (and the abundance of life within) we humans are forced to conclude:

(A) something derived from "Something" or

(B) something derived from "Nothing."

I embrace option (A), and my doing so has nothing to do with theology.

Originally posted by Robtard
Also, let's just say I.D. is correct in principle and that "intelligence" doing the designing is in fact God, which version of God is it?

Study the world religions; I can give my opinion on the matter, but at the end of the day, you have to find the answers for yourself. This also applies to Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design; study objectively, and make an informed decision.

My question for ID theorists is that given ID, who created the complex intelligent designer? They claim that complex intelligent existence had to have been designed, but what designed the designer? I guess the designer must have been designed by another designer who was designed by yet again some other designer who was designed by...

The premise for ID falls short in that it offers absolutely no hypothesis as to creation. It is entirely circular. Where did the intelligent designer come from?

ID has no substantive theory, it is merely a scapegoat for pushing the question of origin farther away from a possible solution. ID is crap and should be ignored by science as even if there were an intelligent designer there was some process to the origin all the same. Science deals with how it was done, not necessarily who did it.

Originally posted by ushomefree
In respect to the Cosmos (and the abundance of life within) we humans are forced to conclude:

(A) something derived from "Something" or

(B) something derived from "Nothing."

I embrace option (A), and my doing so has nothing to do with theology.

Study the world religions; I can give my opinion on the matter, but at the end of the day, you have to find the answers for yourself. This also applies to Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design; study objectively, and make an informed decision.

What about (C) Something has always been in one form or another?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about (C) Something has always been in one form or another?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's equivalent to A.

Ya, but I thing he meant God. 😉 Don't you?

Originally posted by ushomefree
creationism is a philosophy applied to the interpretation of facts

I realize this ad hominem but if you seriously think Creationism is based on facts I see no reason anything you say should be taken seriously.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, but I thing he meant God. 😉 Don't you?

Of course that's a common tool by ID idea (NOT THEORY) supporters.

Originally posted by ushomefree
In respect to the Cosmos (and the abundance of life within) we humans are forced to conclude:

(A) something derived from "Something" or

(B) something derived from "Nothing."

I embrace option (A), and my doing so has nothing to do with theology.

Study the world religions; I can give my opinion on the matter, but at the end of the day, you have to find the answers for yourself. This also applies to Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design; study objectively, and make an informed decision.

I was under the impression you were pushing the 'I.D. is correct and God did it' concept.

Yeah, ID isn't a theory, it's religion.

Originally posted by Regret
My question for ID theorists is that given ID, who created the complex intelligent designer? They claim that complex intelligent existence had to have been designed, but what designed the designer? I guess the designer must have been designed by another designer who was designed by yet again some other designer who was designed by...

The premise for ID falls short in that it offers absolutely no hypothesis as to creation. It is entirely circular. Where did the intelligent designer come from?

ID has no substantive theory, it is merely a scapegoat for pushing the question of origin farther away from a possible solution. ID is crap and should be ignored by science as even if there were an intelligent designer there was some process to the origin all the same. Science deals with how it was done, not necessarily who did it.

Answer: God is and always was.

Regardless of how I.D. proponents dodge the question, I.D. is about God being the designer.

Originally posted by Regret
My question for ID theorists is that given ID, who created the complex intelligent designer? They claim that complex intelligent existence had to have been designed, but what designed the designer? I guess the designer must have been designed by another designer who was designed by yet again some other designer who was designed by...

The premise for ID falls short in that it offers absolutely no hypothesis as to creation. It is entirely circular. Where did the intelligent designer come from?

Its important to note--or ponder--that if an "Intelligent Agent" (IA) created the Cosmos, the IA would not be governed by the laws of physics we human beings are (within the Cosmos). The IA does not require a creator! Let me explain.

We must use caution when applying humanistic terms to an IA; the IA, within the bounds of all logic, "transcends" the Cosmos. In other words, the IA is "outside the box." We are able to reach this conclusion based on phenomena we human beings experience in our lives. Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwhices do not create themselves. Albert Einstein published this feat with his theory General Relativity.

The IA--within this premise--would have characteristics that supersede the Cosmos--being "eternal" for instance. The IA is not governed by the laws of physics we human beings experience (not to mention test and measure).

Dismissing this notion would result in a mathematical nightmare--a number repeating itself. The IA "lineage" would be eternal--never reaching a beginning (or end). I think an IA being "eternal" is a safe assumption--an "eternal" IA created the Cosmos; period.

Originally posted by Regret
ID has no substantive theory, it is merely a scapegoat for pushing the question of origin farther away from a possible solution. ID is crap and should be ignored by science as even if there were an intelligent designer there was some process to the origin all the same.

If you take the time to study irreducible complexity, specified complexity, and the anthropic principle objectively, your opinion may change.

Originally posted by Robtard
Answer: God is and always was.

Regardless of how I.D. proponents dodge the question, I.D. is about God being the designer.