Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design Proofs and Objections
bran_sept88
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 3 (80186)
01-22-2004 8:10 PM


I'm Bran,
I am looking for good sites and good arguments for ID and also rebuttals and other opinions would be greatly appreciated in my effort to search for the origin of life.
I am looking solely for scientific evidence and would appreciate you insight.
BRAN

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Silent H, posted 01-22-2004 11:01 PM bran_sept88 has not replied
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2004 3:28 AM bran_sept88 has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 2 of 3 (80206)
01-22-2004 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bran_sept88
01-22-2004 8:10 PM


I'd suggest combing through this forum on Intelligent Design arguments (pro/con). You can find a lot of good arguments/examples, though I must say ID does not have many ardent supporters here.
There is an official website for ID:
Discovery Institute | Public policy think tank advancing a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation.
You will find some of the lead proponents of ID discussing their theory on it. But if you want to read a complete discussion (directly from them), you'll have to buy their books. The key books are Darwin's Blackbox (Behe), Icons of Evolution (Wells), and just about anything by William Dembski. If you want evidence from science, and not purely mathematics, read Behe.
I'd suggest going to a bookstore, or library, and looking for collections of scientific discussions on ID. One of the better ones is by Robert Pennock (at least I think it's robert).
I should add that there is a vast difference between the origin of life (abiogenesis) and the origin of species (evolution). ID theorists do not seem to have decided which subject ID refers to (or if it covers both). This is one of its many weaknesses. Make sure to keep an eye on which subject an ID argument is addressing while reading.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bran_sept88, posted 01-22-2004 8:10 PM bran_sept88 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 3 of 3 (80254)
01-23-2004 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bran_sept88
01-22-2004 8:10 PM


Well there are anumber of issues here.
Firstly the origin of life is something we don't know a lot about.
Think about it. It happened over 2 BILLION years ago. We don't know what form the first life took (although it would probably have been much simpler than the simplest modern life). All we have is the surviving geological record to even work out what condiitons were available. We can't be sure where it happened (probably a lot of it happened at sea - but where ? near the shore ? near hydrothermal vents ? and how mcuh happened elsewhere ?). We have got a very difficult problem to solve with very difficult evidence. While that makes for good rhetorical arguments (generally arguments from ignorance or God-of-the Gaps) it really doesn't make for good scientific arguments for ID.
But it gets worse - the ID movement does not really WANT to deal with the origin of life scientifically. The ID movement is a blanket group that only wants to put forward the idea that some sort of intelligent designer intervened somehow in the history of life. They don't even discuss the age of the Earth because that would alienate the Young Earth Creationists (although scientifically the matter is settled - the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old). ID is a political movement whose main purpose at present is to remove some of the science from school textbooks and perhaps replace it with their own opinions.
If you want to look at the "scientific" work of ID then Behe and "Mike Gene" (Welcome idthink.net - BlueHost.com) come closest, although Gene is a fringe figure not really part of the ID movement. Then Dembski and there's really nobody else worth mentioning.
Some critical sites:
TalkDesign | Critically analyzing the Intelligent Design movement
Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bran_sept88, posted 01-22-2004 8:10 PM bran_sept88 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024