Help me understand Intelligent Design

I disagree. Some of its proponents are as are some of its critics. Probably true but that's got nothing to do with ID. ID is just Theism which includes Deism. If you are talking about science only then you are right.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

1) Can you name any major figures in the ID movement who aren't anti-evolution in some way ? (Even Denton still is to some extent - but he was mainly part of the ID movement for his earlier work).2) Since ID is a movement it's position is naturally constrained by the position of its members. If most of the leaders AND the vast majority of the members are against something then the movement could never favour it.3) Since evolution is science, then you have no objection to evolutionary theory being presented as if there were no designer.

Hello Nuggin, The 'good' is that it provides for a measure of comfort to those who do not rule it out; that our existance is not merely arbitrary and absurd.The 'good' is that allowing for the possibility of Intelligent design also allows for the possibility of a purpose and reason for human existance other than merely determinism and mechanistic law disallowing the idea of choice or freewill.The 'good' is that by stating emphatically there is no possibility of the universe being created suggest there is no creator which taken to it's logical conclusion states there is no god which is a statement in direct opposition of many religions.The 'good' is that although religion is responsible for a good deal of harm, it also is reponsible for a good deal of good. Some people are not intellectually advanced enough to accept a world without the guidance and structure religion provides.The 'good' is that not accepting a uncreated universe means we do not have accept nihlism. And although one could find personal meaning and satisfaction in his life; It is a excercise in self delusion that he has any true reason de entre'. Ones existance based on nothing more than the cause and affects of matter following a set course determined by a state of arbitrary existance.I do not think Intelligent design theories have any place in science or classrooms. We should stick to the known facts. But that should not invalidate the possibilties.Possibilities are what the very nature of existance is based on.

And by all means, you can teach your children this. But we agree that this is no reason to introduce ID into science class, or science journals? As does other forms of religion and philosophy - by all means believe this and teach it to your children. But who wants to state that there is no possibility of a god - with regards to science that is? Science is agnostic to the question of god, ID is not - so teaching ID, or pushing ID into science is to push religion where it does not belong. And what has this got to do with science? And evolution have no bearing on nihilism - acepting the scientific theory of evolution does not make you a nihilist. Then we agree - no one is trying to stop you from teaching religion or philosophy to your children - and I think most participants will defend your right to do this (as long as it is not abvious that you harm your children)

There is no known reason for an intelligent pusher not to be responsible for gravity.There is no known reason for an intelligent flavorist not to be responsible for making things taste exactly the way they do.There is no known reason for an intelligent number sorter to keep the meaning of 1 as 1 and 2 as 2.But, we don't need these beings to explain what we see. In fact, their addition to any explaination only serves to complicate things unneccesarily

All that copying of my post just to agree with me? You could of saved some bandwidth and time by just posting that rather than disecting my post point by point attempting to insert argument where there is none.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

I don't care if they all are. It isn't germane whether the leaders are evolutionists or not. ID itself is not. I disagree. I am a Christian, but I'm also a Theist. ID is only about my Theism not my Christianity. Basically yes. I think though that the student should be aware however that evolution is agnostic and does not presuppose either the existance or the non-existance of a creator. It is largely assumed that evolution and Christianity cannot exist together. That is only true for literalists. For the rest of us there is no contradiction. Because of the misconception I think it is important to dispel this notion that the two are mutually exclusive.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Frankly, I don't care whether there is a known reason or not. I am only interested in what the truth of the matter is. In the case of a creator we can only come to a conclusion of what the truth is by non-sceintific means and as a result there is much disagreement.If a creator complicates things then so be it, but I don't agree that it does. Many of the world's top scientists, including Francis Collins the director of the Human Genome Project are Theists, (Christian in Collins case) and that doesn't seem to be hindering their ability to do science.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

1) You asserted that some of IDs proponents were anti-evolution. Now you admit that you can't think of a single significant figure in the ID movement who isn't. By your own admission your statement was misleading.2) Presumably you are claiming to either hold a significant posiiton in the ID movement or that your views are shared by a significant number of members of that movement. If not, your personal beleifs have no bearing on what ID does or does not claim.3) It wuld bemore correct to say that evolution presmumes the non-existence of a creator that acts in any detectable way, within the domain of evolutionary theory. Just as other scientific theories presume a similar lack of overt interference by undetectable entities..

I used the term proponent and you used the term leader. What I know about ID I learned from the web site of the Discovery Institute, and from this forum. I have read other posters on this forum that agree with my position. I am giving my beliefs and you are presenting yours. I hold no position whatsoever in the ID movement. OK. Just as long as it doesn't presume that because the creator is not detectable that a creator doesn't exost.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

1)

quote:

---

I used the term proponent and you used the term leader.

---

Not true. I used the term "major figure", not "leader". The example I referred to (Denton) was never a leader although his old ideas were influential.The DI IS an anti-evolution organisation. ALL the people I've listed have been associated with the DI (typically at Fellow level or above)2) By your own admission, then. your personal beliefs are not likely to have any inflence on the position of the ID movement.3) You're welcome to your opinions.

This is, of course, assuming that eyesight is important to life in general. But we also have animals that have no sight organs or ones where the eyes have atrophied from disuse or end up buried under layers of skin because they are no longer needed by the organisms (typically cave dwellers). Why would a designer design an eye, and then bury it under layers of skin for an organism that lives in the dark? The eye is no more complex than other organs, it is composed of cell, some of which recieve input and some of which transmit it and some of which are just there for the shape of the organ. The ear is not much different. Nor smell. Why should a person look at one science different from any other? They are all employed in the process of understanding "life, the universe, and everything" (D. Adams) -- which amounts to all of creation (if that is your belief). No, ID is a (weakened) form of Deism. Deism is more inclusive, and older (prior claim). William Paley (1743-1805) presented the first argument for the existence of God based on perceived design in the world in his book Natural Theology (1802), while Deism was the faith of many Founding Fathers. Modern ID takes the Paley concept and deducts mention of god, so that makes "neo-paleyanism" even younger. When we are talking about alternatives to the (validated scientific) theory of evolution, then they have to be scientific ... or they are not alternatives. Strictly speaking you have an untested hypothesis. You are having trouble here conflating two different things into ID, and it is a common mistake. Strictly speaking ID (neo-Paleyanism) intentionally denies it is biblical creationism, and you are confusing this with the belief in a god creator (that must necessarily then have designed the creation ... or did he? perhaps that was jobbed out to angels?).You need to face facts that ID is not about Biblical Creationism, and in fact holds basic concepts that are contradictions of typical creationist thinking: that "god" could be an alien from a distant planet and that there could be thousands of them.This is a "we don't know what, who or how many {god(s)} are out there" belief. Last time I checked that was not standard literally fundamental biblical based creationism.This is the difference between what you want ID to be and what it is. Most people accept what it is, based on what it says about itself and what it does in practice.FROM: Intelligent design Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com Logically this means that there or two circles that intersect in a small area, in ID where it could be one god that did all the heavy lifting, and in biblical creo where we exclude everything else the god did. However, Dawkins doesn't write American textbooks and there are a lot of evolutionists that are people of faith and don't need ID between their science and their faith. Properly speaking evolution does not say there is no god, it just says that: based on the natural laws observed in the universe (whether those laws are the result of god or some other effect is immaterial), this is the process that happens over time -- mutations cause changes in populations of species, sometimes helping individuals survive and sometimes not. Heh. another logical fallacy. Let's parse that:Some of IDs proponents are anti-evolution
Some of IDs critics are anti-evolutionHow does this say that ID is not anti-evolution? There are critics of ID because it contradicts their faith (see above) and they are also (surprise) agains evolution.some {A} are {B} and some {A} are {C} therefore {A} is {D}. Does it serve an useful role in understanding your faith? The ID movement is driven by the leaders, they make the statements (verbal and action) about what it is and what it does. Communism by itself does not mean a totalitarian state, I could name other political entities. I agree, religious leaders should be told to stop portraying evolution as some {hedonistic\atheistic\evil} plot and let the science get on with understanding the evidence.Only an unhindered understanding of the evidence can lead to clarity of hypothesis and the formation of new theories to validate.

---

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.

Hi RAZDI think that you have in some instances misconstrued my opinion. In the first place I don't think that ID really goes beyond Paleyanism, (I've never thought of using that term before, but I like it), nor do I want it to.We have science which is constrained by theory that can be tested by the scientific method. Once we are beyond the science we can look at the evidence that cannot be tested by the scientific method and we can consider ID or Atheism. ID would encompass any form of Theism. You might also ask why a process that is based on survival of the fittest would produce such a creature. Frankly I just look at the eye, (or as you point out other organs), and I frankly find that it takes more faith than I can muster to believe that it just happened by random chance, even if I could accept that matter and energy itself just happened to come into existence. I agree. I'm not sure why you took what you seem to have taken from my post. I contend as I mentioned that any form of Theism would come under the umbrella of ID. I personally don't see ID as being an alternative to the TofE. I don't even see the two as being in conflict. I have been trying to make the point all along that ID is NOT Biblical creationism. That is exactly what I have been trying to say all along. (Obviously not as well mind you. )

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

And this is the root of the problem here: you are broadening the definition until it doesn't mean anything useful. If there is no difference between your usage of ID and theism, then this means that using the term in a discussion leads to misunderstanding because you are using a different definition than the audience. and this is the result of mixing meanings of terms ... eh? Thanks, it's a new innovation, part of my Silly Design Theory position to teach both sides of the design controversy. But you don't find it contradictory it seems, when the basic premise is, at heart, a expressed implicit denial of christianity.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.

Sounds like we're all in agreement here.There is no "Theory" of Intelligent Design.Proponents of ID are simply anti-evolution, but have no answers/theories of their own.Basically, the whole movement boils down to a few people with their hands over their eyes screaming "I don't see anything".Brilliant. And these people want to be in charge of education.Fear this