What is the I in ID?

I came.I did.I saw.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

do you even read the Bible?You assert: Where do you get such nonsense?Have you read Genesis? and let's move on to Egypt and Exodus 12 v8-11 Of course the Hebrews ate meat.But what does the diet have to do with ID?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So far I haven't seen any convincing arguments about the Intelligence behind Intelligent design. I’d like to give it a try. Please understand that this is a personal belief and so it is worth almost as much as you paid for it.I do believe that there is an I in Intelligent Design and that the I is GOD.But the issue is, where is the evidence of that design?IMHO, that evidence is seen at the basic rules level. Where that level is changes as we learn more. A hundred years fifty years ago I would have placed that at the molecular and gene level. As we learned more, it moved to the atomic level, to the four forces. Later, as we learned more it appeared the design was at the sub-atomic level. Now it might be at the string or brane level but I’m willing to bet, as we learn more we will find the design racing away to just beyond the very limits of our knowledge.Do I see any signs of Intelligent Design in the Universe as we see it, Life as we know it including what is shown at the fossil level?Nope.Those are the results of purely natural forces which in turn are the results of the basic forces that were designed.Did GOD design Man in HIS image? No, of course not.But the basic rules, the things that started it all in motion, the things that determine Dark Energy or Dark Matter or Matter and energy or branes or strings or mathematics or art as we know them, the rules such as Natural Selection, there we may well be able to see the hand of the Designer.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

String theory or M Theory is one of those ideas that once you see it defines what I see as the classic scientific reaction.Too many people think that science is made up of the rare Aha!!!!! moments when in reality it is a long succession of "Now why didn't I see that?".edited to add required spelling errors.This message has been edited by jar, 06-23-2004 01:16 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes that is a great question. And the answer so far is, "Don't know".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think that the difference might be that not all of us find obviously ludicrous. Why couldn't a GOD act, influence, manipulate, modify, create or destroy physical stuff? That's the kind of things that GODs do.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I know that many people use complexity as an indication of design. So far, I have not seen any convincing evidence that such design is actually there. It there is design at that level, then it is on the level of a 6th Grade Science Project to "show the ways that critters could see".But you mention the beauty in nature. And if you will go back and look at my post, one of the basic rules or factors that I included was art.By that I meant aesthetics, beauty, the appreciation and possibilitiy that there might be color and symmetry, and form and sounds that harmonize.You see, the potential for all of these things in the basic, underlying rules. Music is no more than math. But a symphony is something more.Just as GOD was thrilled when the results of his basic rules, when passed through a Beethoven filter produced the 5th Symphony. I bet he was equally surprised when a long line of living things when passed through his Natural Selection Filter gave us Beethoven in the first place.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let there be light.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, what I said was "Let there be Light". I don't think you can say "God said" or imply it was voice beyond the figurative level.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

As I have said, I believe that GOD created the basic rules. We really don't know them yet but constantly learn more as we gather knowledge and observations.I don't believe that GOD created the heavens and the earth. Rather, they are the evolved product of whatever rules he did create. One goal of Religion, IMHO, is to work to try to understand the mind of GOD. That can be done by learning the HOW involved in what we see. But that is only the HOW part.The WHY is the other part of religion and there we may find even greater challenges.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

We won't be able to test it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I agree.ID is religion. I have never said anything other than that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

would make a great thread, but not here. All we are looking at in this one is the I in ID.But IMHO, there really are no limitations on what a GOD can do including setting self-limitations.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Isn't that in the Nature of a GOD?The key is, there is no need to play the God card frivolusly. If we look at current and past living organisms, it's pretty obvious that God did not design them unless his purpose was to be intentionally sloppy or to fool us into thinking that they were not designed. So it is far more reasonable to assume that God is competent and to look for signs of competent design.That was why back in Message 55 I suggested that the I in ID was God and that he (or she as the case may be) designed the very most basic rules that set everything in motion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

First, the most that I can outline here is my personal beliefs. Nothing more than that is possible.I believe they are wrong based on the evidence at hand. If you look at living things, past and present, there is every indication that they evolved just as one would expect from the TOE. There are no signs of creation that I can see.If the evidence of living things is the indication of God, then it's also evidence of a pretty damn sloppy God that is not capable of good, clean design. I find it very difficult to imagine an incompetent God.At the other extreme, at the very basic, the very small, I find just the opposite. I find a set of rules that are simple, elegant, clean, beautiful, aesthetic, functional. Every time we learn more, the underlying rules become even more elegant. That, for me, is the kind of creation of a God.I don't think, though I may well be wrong, that I use the term God or Created indiscriminately. I try to use it with very specific limits as to my understanding. If you find looking through my posts, that I am using it in such a manner, please point it out to me.As to the Creationists in general. I believe what I have said is that it is absolutely possible to explain the world we live on, the Universe we live within and the life that has been here and is here now, based on the very simple rules we find in physics, biology, the TOE and geology. While they can assert that GOD made man in his own image, looking at the product shows a faulty, sophomoric design.I believe GOD is better than that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion