Help me understand Intelligent Design

There is ID as a principle, and then there is ID as a movement. The basic principle you describe is not one that causes problems. Some people disagree of course, but the principle does not itself conflict with the theory of evolution. There are plenty of evolutionists who think that there is a designer. ID, as a principle, is entirely consistent with OEC (old earth creationism) and with theistic evolution. It does not contradict the theory of evolution.It is ID, as a movement, that raises controversies. Those in the movement claim that they can prove intelligent design, and they demand that it be part of the science curriculum. Evolutionists, and many other scientists, object to this, largely because no proof has been given, and the methods used to support ID are not scientific (the arguments are philosophical, not based on empirical evidence). Even more peculiar, the ID movement is being supported by YECs (young earth creationists) who have traditionally been opposed to theistic evolution.Thus ID looks more like a political movement than anything else, apparently a movement intended to get the teaching of religious views into the public schools. You are technically right. There are many creationists (OECs for example) who have no argument with TofE. But there is a small group of YECs who take an extremely literalist reading of genesis, and who are militantly opposed to evolution. The term "creationist" tends to be applied mainly to YECs.

I'm willing to admit that the Eiffel Tower is the result of intelligent design

So Far As I Can Tell

ID isn't a theory.If ID was all biology had, then it would not be mentioned. Biology would be classification, anatomy, physiology.

YECs and OECs would normally believe that there was/is an intelligent designer. So would theistic evolutionists. ID is fairly broad, in that it does not claim to identify who/what is the intelligent designer. However, ID does not give any backing to specifically YEC claims of biblical literalism, and attempts to be seen as not based on religious thinking.At present YECs appear to be supporting the ID movement. Many theistic evolutionists are opposed to the movement, although they agree with the claim that there is an intelligent designer. It's not clear how this will shake out in the long runThere isn't even any necessary contradiction between ID and the theory of evolution, in that evolution could be the means used by an intelligent designer.What is distinctive about ID, is the claim that intelligent design can be scientifically proved. The objection from the science community is that there is no actual science there.My own opinion (probably shared by most scientists): Allow ID to attempt to develop as a science (we could not prevent that anyway). If it is successful, it will eventually earn respect within the science community, and will earn a place in the science classroom. That's the correct way to get into the curriculum. Trying to shoe-horn it in with politics is bad policy.I personally doubt that ID will ever be successful science. But that's a different matter. I'm willing to let them show me as long as they use science, not politics.

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.

I'm not so sure of that.According to Lynn Margulis, some part of bio history has involved symbiotic associations becoming unions. I'm inclined to think she is right, at least in some cases. And that would be neither mutation nor natural selection.

I'm quite certain that she greatly overstates her claims.I do think she may be correct in some cases. In particular, she is probably correct that a symbiotic union was involved in forming eukaryotes. It is possible, but less certain, that it was involved in the origin of major phyla. Her idea that it is involved in speciation is, in my opinion, nonsense.

No, that's not a legitimate scientific question. It's a philosophical (and perhaps theological) question. Science deals with cause, not with purpose.

Define "purpose" and explain how it is intrinsic in a malaria mosquito.

No, I don't know that. It's wrong.I'll grant that there are uncaused quantum events. However, cause is still very important to science.

I have a question for you about purpose, ausar_maat. For perspective, I drive a Toyota.What's the purpose of my auto? Is it

1. To make money for the Toyota corporation?
2. To provide earnings for shareholders of the Toyota corporation?
3. To provide me transportation to and from work?
4. To convert chemical energy into kinetic energy?
5. To convert petroleum into carbon dioxide and other vapors?
6. To wear rubber off tires?
7. Something else (you suggest)?

Inquiring minds want to know.

You are make a basic mistake. Selection is not random. You take a comment relevant to selection (non-random), and treat it as if it had something to do with mutation (random).Pick up a tuning fork. Bang it against something. I makes a nice tone.The banging induces completely random vibrations into the tuning fork. The resonance of the tuning fork selects just those vibrations that are near the resonant frequency, and emphasizes those. You seem to be saying that this is impossible, and that there must have been an intelligent designer purposely controlling the way the tuning fork was banged, for the purpose of producing that tone. But that is nonsense.Yes, you are quite right that you are seeing purpose. The purpose you see is coming from your own imagination. You need to look at it more objectively.

Sheldrake is great entertainment. But I cannot take him seriously. He has a knack of seeing mystery in what is quite ordinary.

What point are you trying to make, ausar_maat?I have read many of your posts, and I still fail to see your point.Do you believe that there was an intelligent designer? Well that's fine with me. I don't try to control your beliefs. If you want to think that way, go ahead.Are you trying to convince me (and others) that there was an intelligent design? If that is your aim, you have failed completely. You have not produced any evidence whatsoever. The problems with your arguments have been explained to you many times.Are you trying to show that, once teleological assumptions are made, then evolution looks highly improbable unless there was a designer? I don't think anybody disagrees with that. What they disagree with, is your teleological assumptions.Are you trying to argue that there is a scientific basis for teleological assumptions? If that's your aim, you have failed. You have not provided any evidence to support such a claim.Are you trying to argue that there is no scientific disproof of your teleological assumptions? I'm not sure why you would bother. I haven't seen anybody trying to disprove your assumptions. Scientists only assert that there is no basis for your assumptions. But sure, maybe there really is an invisible pink unicorn that planned it all out, and somehow managed to subtly meddle with apparently random events just so that they would all turn out the right way. I can't prove that wrong, but I'm not likely to believe it until there is independent evidence of the invisible pink unicorn.Are you just trying to argue that Dawkins use poor metaphors to argue his case? Well, take that up with Dawkins. As far as I can tell, he didn't consult any of us for advice on how to best present his ideas.Help me out, ausar_maat - tell me what it is that you are trying to argue. You seem to keep bringing up the same points, and they have been answered time after time. If people seem dismissive, it's because you seem to be ignoring their responses.Maybe other responders are as confused as I am, on what it is you are trying to argue. They have been answering your aruments on the assumption that you were attempting to show that ID is scientific. If your aim is actually something different, perhaps that is why you see the responses as dismissive. No, this isn't a matter of assuming philosophical naturalism. It is a matter of basic scientific objectivity. The teleological assumptions you make are subjective. Science avoids such assumptions in order to be objective. You have failed to demonstrate any flaws.What you have been arguing, in effect, is that if we were to make some highly subjective teleological assumptions, we would come to different conclusions.Well sure. The history of science has many examples where people have made bad assumptions, and reached wrong conclusions. Scientists do their best to avoid making unwarranted assumptions. We do not lose objectivity by avoiding teleological assumptions. Rather, we avoid those assumptions in order to retain objectivity.