Help me understand Intelligent Design

ID is based on denying evolution and most ID work consists of attacks on evolutionI could be wrong but this almost sounds like you're implying that ID's goal is simply to discredit evolution. I agree, but like I said in the above post, I thought ID is science, isn't that why so many people in the US is supporting it, not to mention your president? Same question as my above post, if evolution has been tested and accepted in the scientific community, why are there so many people against it? Hmmm, would it be correct for me to say that YECs and OECs are all IDs, but not all IDs are YECs or OECs?

I'm sure Para did an excellent job answering these, but I'm gonna do it, too. ID and ToE are very much in contradiction. ID is Creationism. It says that a "Great Designer" specifically set about creating the various creatures and plants we see around us. There is no methodology, no evidence, and most importantly, no way to disprove the theory. But, I'm getting ahead of myself... Science has gotten to where it is by adhering to a specific set of rules - The Scientific Method. One of the most important parts of the scientific method is the ability to disprove a theory.If I suggest that apples and oranges are different, then my theory would be supported by the observations we take of various trees. However, if you found a tree that produced both apples and oranges, it would falisify my theory and I'd have to start over.With ID, there is no way to disprove the theory. "An invisible Intelligent Designer made life through some unknown method." There is no way to disprove such a designer, therefore it's not scientific.But, to the layman, it sounds reasonable. "Hey, you can't disprove it. We should teach it."Well, let me offer this instead - "The entire universe is contained in a magic invisible box of Frankenberry cereal." Also not scientific. Should this be taught in science class? Depends on what you mean by proven / tested. There is a mountain of evidence supporting evolution. There have been uncountable numbers of tests done in all sorts of fields from geology to nuclear physics to biology to genetics, they all point to ToE being correct. So "Proven and Tested" as well, if not better, than anything else out there.Especially when compaired to ID. So far, to date, there have been zero experiments done to prove ID. None. Why? Because they don't have a methodology to test. Well, there are two groups of IDers. There are the honest ones - "The Great Designer is a White Male Christian God" and the dishonest ones - "The Great Designer could be anything, maybe an alien even (psst but really he's a white male christian god)"No need to apologize Flip. We LOVE people who ask questions. We're all perfectly willing to answer them (even if we've done so dozens of times before). Because, at one point, we didn't know the answers to the same questions you are asking and someone had to explain it to us.Keep 'em coming. We're here for you

Well, most fundamentally, the IDers don't believe in Macro-Evolution. MicroEvolution (small changes like your eyes are blue or brown) has been completely proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. But, the IDers (and other Creationists) don't believe that a lot of little changes add up to a big change.In other words, they believe that 1 and change into 1.1. They believe that 1.1 can change into 1.2. Etc. But they don't believe that 1.999999999 will ever become 2.0.Since mutation of the genetic code is a fundamental part of the methodology of evolution, and there is absolutely no evidence of any sort of "barrier" between mutations. Evolution holds that macro-evolution happens, is happening, will continue to happen. As per my previous post, which I put up a second ago and which there is no way you could have read yet. ID is not science because it is not disprovable. There is no way to test the theory, therefore there is no way to judge it's merits.As for the president. This is a man who was very nearly killed by a pretzel. Well, in fact, none of the IDers are scientists (at least in regards to the field of biology. It's possible that there is some rocket scientist who's also an IDer, I guess).The IDers don't support ToE for a few simple reasons.
1) If Evolution is right, then Genesis in the Bible is not literally correct. And, if Genesis is not correct, then the whole Bible is suspect. (Not how I read it, but that's what they think)
2) If Evolution is right, then I'm not "special".
3) If Evolution is right, then I'm an animal like any other.None of these reasons has anything to do with the facts. It's just ego driven nonsense from people who don't want to own up to being a part of the world as opposed to being in charge of it.So they fight against Evolution, hence the contraversy. There's a lot of blah blah blah in the press, but within the scientific community 99.99% of all scientists know that the IDers are complete nut-job religious fanatics.

The most important point ID makes is that some biological structures are what they call "irreducibly complex", meaning that they wouldn't function if they were missing any part. Evolution states that complex things can evolve from simpler things, by gradual change. The "simpler things" are missing parts that "irreducibly complex" things supposedly cannot do without. ID says that the mechanism of evolution, random mutation and natural selection, cannot produce complex living things. ID-ers claim it's science, but real scientists don't see it that way. For something to be science, it has to meet certain requirements. For example, it should be testable and falsifiable. ID doesn't live up to that. Basically, ID says "God did it". How can you test that? How can it be falsified? It can't. That's why it's not science. If you mean the president of the USA, he isn't a scientist, he is a christian fundamentalist and a moron. And fortunately he isn't my president, I live in Europe. Some of them are, at best, scientists in some other field of science, unrelated to evolution. Only a very few are really doing science in related fields (e.g. Michael Behe), but their results are not accepted by the majority of scientists in the field, because they do not live up to the scientific method.Most proponents of ID are not scientists at all, but religuous zealotes. Why indeed? Because it's not a controversy among scientists, but between scientists and religious non-scientists. Both groups have completely different agendas. {edited for spelling}This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 06-Oct-2005 09:46 AM

---

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

Bingo! Dead on. That is not only their goal, it's their own form of attack.I started this entire thread with the simple request for the IDers' - "Please explain the method by which ID takes place."They can't. All they do is attempt to tear down the examples of evolution. (which, by the way, they repeated fail at). It's really not that many people. It's a VERY vocal minority which is well organized and well funded. Well, it gets murky. Here's the thing, because this is a political movement and not a scientific one, groups like the IDers, YECs and OECs have come together to attack evolution. However, they have radically different views. They refuse to discuss those views because they must present a united front.For example -
YECs believe in the LITERAL creation. That is, everything in the Bible is absolutely word for word correct. There was a great Flood. The world is roughly 6000 years old. All humans alive are descended from Noah 4000 years ago.OECs believe in creation, but they concede that the world is much older than 6000 years. They see the early books of the Bible as metaphorical. A day in Genesis could be a billion years. However, it's still God in charge, he's still selectively creating everyone.IDers claim to take God out of the picture and replace him with an unnamed supernatural being of immense power and the ability to create the world. They suggest that life has happened much as Evolutionists claim, however every mutation which has taken place has been specifically planned and guided by the hands of the Great Designer.So, the one thing they have in common is that they all believe that the "random pointless existance" which is suggested by ToE is no good.

Ok, I get what you're trying to say... I thinkWhat I don't get though, is why there's even a controversy, if ID isn't science, shouldn't people (i.e. US government) be able to easily figure it out via the scientific method and dismiss it just as easily instead of having all these trials and debates etc... ? Unless you're telling me that the government is in on it?In any case, I'll hold judgement until I hear the other side of the story.

Thanks, that definitely clears some stuff for me.But are you saying that there are absolutely no biologist who supports ID? not one?

Ok, I think I'm getting it now, although I've only been hearing from you guys, who seem to support evolution, I'll have to wait and see what the IDers say about this before I make up my mind. So you're saying that since they aren't scientists then they shouldn't have the authority to be dictating what is and what isn't science correct?But if that is so, then why is ID getting so much attention? It seems like (or atleast seems to have been presented) as a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution.If there is no solid science behind ID, why is the US government supporting it?

Except for the YEC claims, I dont see any reason for these to conflict with evolution, couldn't the "random" element infact be the "hand of god" at work but since we have no means of determining god's existence, we simply attribute it to "randomness"?I could be wrong but couldn't that be a workable concept for both evolution and ID ?

Seems like a good idea. Because they are squealing so loudly. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Your guess is as good as mine.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 06-Oct-2005 10:37 AM

---

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

Ok, fair enough.Thanks again for the replies, I suppose this would be the hundredth time you guys have had to answer those exact same questions. lol

quote:

---

I could be wrong but this almost sounds like you're implying that ID's goal is simply to discredit evolution.

---

No, their main goal is to make the U.S. science curriculum more in agreement with their beliefs. Attacking evolution is a tactic.

quote:

---

I agree, but like I said in the above post, I thought ID is science, isn't that why so many people in the US is supporting it, not to mention your president?

---

ID claims to be science but really it isn't even trying to be science. And sicne I'm not a US citizen or resident Bush isn't my president.

quote:

---

Same question as my above post, if evolution has been tested and accepted in the scientific community, why are there so many people against it?

---

In the case of the vast majority becuase it contradicts their religious beliefs. Only a tiny fraction of scientists working in relevant areas support ID.

quote:

---

Hmmm, would it be correct for me to say that YECs and OECs are all IDs, but not all IDs are YECs or OECs?

---

It's hard to work out what qualifies as ID and what doesn't. YEC and OEC beliefs are explicitly recognised as ID. Raelian beliefs are not. But there seem to be very few ID supporters who aren't some form of creationist.

Paul..meet me in chat if you have a moment.(4:39 a.m. Mountain Time,Denver, Colorado)

No, ID is not science. It is philosophy, tinged with theological thinking. The U.S.A. president is quite ignorant on science, and has adopted many anti-science policies. Very few scientists support ID. Most of the scientists who do support ID are not biologists and have a poor understanding of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is controversial because it offends the religious preconceptions of some people.

Parasomnium wrote: I hate to tell you, but water poisoning actually EXISTS: (if you're into cycling, Freddy Maertens was reported to suffer from it a couple of years ago, due to some 'body purification therapy' he followed, lol. That's how I know about it.)Water intoxication - Wikipedia