Help me understand Intelligent Design

These are just a list of easily evolved systems.This does not answer "Ones that show all the processes of design?" I agree that blatant examples like these show how a designer can use the process of evolution to realize designs, one just has to wonder what is the {purpose\ability} of that designer as revealed by those designs. Sorry to strain your resources. It is really simple to follow: there are a number of features that would be evident if design were truly employed in an intelligent and directed manner.For instance bats would have better wings, the ones they have are adequate, but innefficient compared to other designs. Why don't bats have feathers? Show me where ID specifically states this "Him" as a source? Is this where the little green aliens operating from cygnus prime come in and take off their costumes? Your contradictions of yourself. Understandable. Another contradiction. If it has discover and unpacked creation via learned and academic methodologies (presumably you mean the scientific process and not occult naval gazing), then how has it plagarized the process?Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Of course you are asking a YEC who is confused by ID and doesn't understand that ID is more contraction to YEC than evolution.

Hi RAZDI read through your post with interest. What I understand of ID is that the evidence that is used to make the case for ID is not scientific. For example the quote below is from your post which you referred me to. I'm prepared to accept what you say about the evolution of the eye. As I said earlier, I don't have the knowledge to agree or disagree with the statement. I believe however, that the evolution of something as complex as the human eyeball is evidence of design of a type which requires a creator. Obviously others don't see it that way. It is evidence of a type that is not scientific and people will come to differing opinions of what we should make of it.To be honest I have trouble understanding, that after considering the scientific complexity of the universe from the BB to QM, the physiological complexity of human life etc, many conclude that it all occured through some huge natural coincidence and that there is no intelligence behind the design.As I said earlier, I contend that ID is only in conflict with Atheism. Science is agnostic and proponents of ID look at the non scientific evidence and come to one conclusion, while the Atheists look at the same non scientific evidence and come to the opposite conclusion. I accept that Deism is a form of ID but that so is any other form of Theism. As a matter of fact I don't really see any difference between ID and Theism.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

That's fine if you believe that. However, it doesn't answer the main question of the thread.Intelligent Design is being proposed as a theory. As I said before, forget if it's scientific or not. I just don't see any theory behind the theory."I believe there was a designer" is not a theory. It's just a statement of belief.For ID to be a theory, it needs to be able to answer, at least superficially, the sort of basic questions that naturally arise.So far, the only answers I've been able to get from ID proponents are virtually identical to those we see from the YECs.That's not to say that the YECs answers are right or wrong. It's just to say, IDers are coopting them.If that's the case, let's call a spade and spade and say that Intelligent Design is in no way a theory, but is simply a fancy name for Biblical Creationism and be done with it

What I always wondered about is... How far exactly can we go in applying the various learned and academic methodologies? When do we know that we hit The Barrier where it is necessary to invoke The Final Designer? Is it enough that we get to a point where we are "stuck" for the time being?What would have happened if that attitude had been around since, say, 1700?

Wait a minute, did you say "any ID model"?If that is true, then I don't understand how you can be so confident in speaking of the intelligent designer as a singular entity. I can think of an ID model where there are hundreds of different intelligent designers, each with their own agenda. If you think it is so blatantly obvious that the facts of nature point to a (one) designer, then I would like to stipulate that the facts of nature could also, with the same ease, point to several designers.There are, for instance, the male- and the female-designers, who, much to our delight, seem to have reached a compromise. Then there is the designer who really wanted to be a gardener. She hates it when the inventions of her colleague, the herbivore-designer, eat her beautiful creations. That's why she poisoned some of them. That'll teach him a lesson.There's a similar conflict between the peace-loving herbivore-designer and the rapacious carnivore-designers (plural), while the latter also have some bones to pick among themselves.Did I mention the assistant-designer who got fired and, in a vengeful mood, decided to sabotage some of the work of his superiors? Thanks to him, we now have appendicitis, a not quite optimally working eye, and a backbone that isn't really up to the task of carying so much weight in a vertical position.This model fits the facts of nature just as well as (or perhaps even better than) your One-Designer-Only model, which, by the way, clearly betrays itself as having its roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition, witness your capitalized use of 'Him'.I would like you to point out any evidence that favours your model over mine. I say you can't. And neither can I do the opposite. That's why I quickly abandon my model and return to science, which has come up with a much more elegant model - one that has no need for superfluous unproveable entities like intelligent designers and such, and provides an actual explanation of the facts.You'd be wise to at least consider such a move yourself.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

You forgot the Silly Design Theory.
http://EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...Why can't we teach both sides of the design controversy and let people decide?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It seems to me however that when you use the term theory you are only thinking about the scientific. The theory, as I see it, of ID is based on opinion not science.For example I might look at the price of oil and suggest that as Rita didn't do the damage that was suspected, the price will drop to $50 a barrel. In other words, I have looked at the evidence and come up with a theory. I may or not be right but that is my opinion.With ID I look at the evidence in nature, in science, in history in experience, in human nature etc and I come to the opinion that there is a designer, (and to keep everyone happy), or that there are designers of the world and the universe.It is theory, but it is not scientific and can't be tested as can a scientific theory. Biblical creationism would necessarily be ID, but ID would not necessarily be Biblical creationism. As I understand it, ID is just what it says. There is intelligent design requiring an intelligent designer or designers, without reference to any particular faith, or to any particular method of design.This message has been edited by GDR, 09-26-2005 07:13 AM

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

If ID is to be offered as an alternative to evolution in science classes then it is reasonable to expect that a scientiifc theory of ID would be produced - one that explains the same data as evolution, as well as evolution does, in terms of a designer.But in fact there is no chance of the ID movement producing such a theory. Mainly because any such theory would have to deal with the desires and capabilities of the proposed designer - and to the vast majority of ID'ers the designer is God.

My understanding is that ID is not opposed to evolution. It is only opposed to evolution that goes the Dawkin's route and claims that evolution occured without a designer.To say that there is no designer that initiated the evolutionary process is just as unscientific as saying that there was.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

DuplicateThis message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 26-September-2005 04:13 PM

Perhaps, but saying "There is no known reason for an intelligent designer to exist, there is no evidence of an intelligent designer, and we have an explanation that works perfectly well without considering this intelligent designer let's not consider it when we do our science since it seems to be an irrelevent entity for explanation purposes as per the principle of parsimony" seems to be perfectly scientific. And whilst this is rarely explicitly stated, this is what is basically being said.It is scientific to assume it exists and make a test to detect it (falsfying one ID hypothesis), however it is not scientific to say that 'other scientists are wrong because a hypothetical entity could be responsbile but I have no evidence for its existence, but I think we should teach our kids about it because...well the alternative theory isn't complete and doesn't answer all the questions, or I don't understand or accept the explanations', which is what the ID movement is saying.

Well there are a number of problems with what you say:1) ID IS anti-evolution. That's the only thing they DO work on. Behe's IC is an anti-evolution argument. Dembski's CSI would be an anti-evolution argument if he ever did the work required to actually use it to produce an argument. Wells' Icons of Evolution is specifically an attack on evolution and on scientists.2) Most ID supporters would NOT be happy with a designer who simply initiated the process of evolution. Behe wants the designer to be directly responsible for IC systems somehow. And he's something of a moderate compared to Dembski or Wells or Johnson (although Dembski at least has done a lot of backpedalling over recent years).3) So long as a designer serves no useful role in theory there is no need to propose one. The comment attributed to Laplace (IIRC) "I have no need of that hypothesis" applies, and so long as it remains true, you've got no valid reason to insist that the possibility of a designer be raised at all. Any more than we should raise the possiiblity of diembodied "Intelligent pullers" to "explain" gravity.

Let's take your Rita oil scenario for a second and call it a theory.Since Rita didn't do as much damage as we expected, price of oil per barrel could drop to $50.Okay. Now here's some questions.What is Rita? How do barrels get assigned a price? What is oil? Where is oil from? Why would price go down under this scenario instead of up?There are answers to all these questions. Obviously they are not described in your theory, but I am confident that you could provide at least plausible answers in defense of your theory.Similiar answers have not been provided by IDers.That's what I don't understand. If this theory or opinion doesn't actually answer any questions, what good is it?

There is no known reason for an intelligent designer not to exist, and there is no evidence of there not being an intelligent designer. I agree that either way though, it is not a factor to be taken into account when doing science, as once again, science is about establishing what happens in the natural world.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.