|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Help me understand Intelligent Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I wondered the same thing. I tend to think that it gets misrepresented on this forum more often than not. As I understand ID it simply says that there is a designer, but that ID on its own is not prepared to say how it is done, and is content to leave it up to the scientists.
It seems to me that it is trying to refute neo-Darwinism, which as I understand it claims that evolution happened without a metaphysical designer. I think that the argument is not between ID and evolution but only between ID and those that attach Atheism to Darwinism. Darwinism on its own is agnostic saying only that this is how it happened, but is silent on why it happened or what caused it to happen. I also have a problem with the way the term "creationism" is used. I consider myself a creationist because I believe in a creator. If the creator used the process of evolution in the process of creation then I have no problem accepting that. I frankly don't have the background to even comment on the accuracy of the TofE but I rely on the scientists that are experts in the field to form an opinion. Everybody is entitled to my opinion. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi RAZD
I 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.
RAZD writes: The development of something complex, such as the human eye, may appear to an unschooled mind as such a miracle of interconnected parts that one would find it hard to understand how the development could occur without divine intervention. But to a mind schooled in biology and evolution, the development of the eye is clearly an easy step-by-step process from a light sensitive skin patch to a fully articulated eyeball with lens, iris, retina and portion of the brain dedicated to assembling the whole mass of signals into a coherent picture and interpreting the result. 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.
RAZD writes: In fact, when you compare the two you will see that ID, especially when properly pursued, is a form of Deism, a religion that also has no dogma, no church and no set of formalized ceremonies, offerings or suggested supplications: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nuggin writes: 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. 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.
nuggin writes: 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
modulous writes: 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: 1) ID IS anti-evolution. I disagree. Some of its proponents are as are some of its critics.
PaulK writes: 2) Most ID supporters would NOT be happy with a designer who simply initiated the process of evolution. Probably true but that's got nothing to do with ID. ID is just Theism which includes Deism.
PaulK writes: 3) So long as a designer serves no useful role in theory there is no need to propose one. If you are talking about science only then you are right. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: 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). I don't care if they all are. It isn't germane whether the leaders are evolutionists or not. ID itself is not.
PaulK writes: 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. I disagree. I am a Christian, but I'm also a Theist. ID is only about my Theism not my Christianity.
PaulK writes: 3) Since evolution is science, then you have no objection to evolutionary theory being presented as if there were no designer. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Nuggin writes: 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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: 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. 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.
PaulK writes: 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. I am giving my beliefs and you are presenting yours. I hold no position whatsoever in the ID movement.
PaulK writes: 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.. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi RAZD
I 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.
RAZD writes: 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. 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.
RAZD writes: 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) I agree. I'm not sure why you took what you seem to have taken from my post.
RAZD writes: 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. I contend as I mentioned that any form of Theism would come under the umbrella of ID.
RAZD writes: When we are talking about alternatives to the (validated scientific) theory of evolution, then they have to be scientific ... or they are not alternatives. I personally don't see ID as being an alternative to the TofE. I don't even see the two as being in conflict.
RAZD writes: 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. I have been trying to make the point all along that ID is NOT Biblical creationism.
RAZD's dictionary definition writes: intelligent designa theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance; abbr. ID That is exactly what I have been trying to say all along. (Obviously not as well mind you. ) Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
