ID taken to the end

One of the things I like to do with ideas (and their proponents) is to take them to their logical ends. Often I find the purists back away from their position when faced with the full extrapolation of the concept.Here's my train of thought on ID:It seems pretty clear to me that mutation does take place. We've all seen pictures of two headed turtles, etc. Is this the method by which the designer makes changes?If so, these mutations should not be random - that would be evolution. They must be deliberate.If that's the case, then it seems all birth defects should also fall under this designers control. Who are we to try and "correct" these deliberate choices?Doesn't ID dictate that a child with a liver disease was put here on purpose by the great designer? Same with a malfunctioning heart valve, etc?Are you sure that this is the theory you want to teach in churches let alone schools?This message has been edited by Nuggin, 08-09-2005 07:55 PM

By and large, birth defects are not caused by mutations. Two-headed turtles are not caused by genetic mutations that can be passed on to offspring. The line of argument might work if you can find something with a genetic connection.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Nuggin,Different PNT, same question. Any interest in following through on this idea? Or is this a dead issue?Thanks.

---

Sure, let me rephrase.If Intelligent Design dictates mutations / copy errors in the genetic code, then it's the Intelligent Designer deliberately creating the people who have transferable afflications? (ie Hemophilia)And, why would the great Designer do this? Clearly these people aren't replacing "normal" people. Seems like a waste of the great Designers time.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

To me, the weak part of the argument is the premise: Since evolution makes no statement about origins, I don't understand why (in this sense) evolution and ID must be at odds. Could it simply be that ID operated only for origins? Whatever happens after origins need not be designed.Seems to me a story like this would be the most logical way to try and explain purported "data points" of complexity which "couldn't have evolved." ID creates the complexity; whatever variation / mutation / evolution that happens afterwards, happens.In other words, I don't see where you're assumption that everything must be designed comes from. I thought it's just the origins that need to be designed (in ID). But I'm not very familiar with specific ID theories, just general ideas I learned through this board.Just a thought.This message has been edited by Ben, Wednesday, 2005/09/07 10:18 PM

I may be misunderstanding you, Ben.Are you suggesting this scenario:
"Designer creates life at the start, evolution takes over resulting in what we have today"?If so, that's Theory of Evolution. ToE doesn't comment on starting point, it's about process.Life created and placed on Earth by God, or Aliens, or abiogenisis, all of that works fine for ToE if we accept that once the ball got rolling, Evolution took over.However, that is not Intelligent Design. ID theory is that the changes have been guided. That a wing could not evolve, since half a wing wouldn't evolve on it's own. (false, but that's their theory).If the changes have been guided, and continue to be guided, then we shouldn't be trying to cure people with genetic disorders. Clearly the Great Designer has plans for them, and our muddling around in his plans is going to result in Wrath.

I'm also no ID expert, but from arguing with those that favor ID I have alos come to the conclusion that ID accepts mutations and "micreoevolution". They just have a hard time with the big changes: how do random single gene mutations add up to complex structures and major changes in body plans.

Nuggin,My thinking was more inline with the previous poster's thoughts. ID operates at the time of creation of some "complex" thing, like an organ or whatever. After that, there's mutation and variation, maybe even evolution.ID is trying to:
- explain the appearance of "complex" things
and
- predict that no such "complex" thing will ever come from evolution.If that's the case, then I don't see how it conflicts with variation and mutation in organisms. I would just say that today's organisms are a mix of design plus mutation. ID would just be saying that evolution wouldn't be able to create certain kinds of structures in the future.Does that make sense?AbE: I think I'm disagreeing with this assessment. I dont' think ID is saying that "changes have been guided." I think it's saying that things were formed statically as is.Or maybe your suggestion is one type of ID, and mine is another type. Both seem consistent with the title "Intelligent Design." Just, if the designer is not a god, then I don't see even at the surface level that it could manipulate changes continually. It seems like a non-starter theory. And I'm pretty sure ID (in general) allows for non-god designers.This message has been edited by Ben, Wednesday, 2005/09/07 10:32 PM

It's possible (likely) that there are different proponents of ID.However, I can't get my mind around this idea:Do IDers accept that mutation yields micro-evolution, but don't accept that macro-evolution takes place? Or is it that they accept macro-evolution as something takes place but only through the will of the Great Designer?

ID tries to avoid taking any definite position when there is any controversy between groups whose support they want. Thus there isn't even an official ID position on the age of the Earth because ID includes YECs.B

Unfortunately, we do not have a set of universal agreements among people who supposedly study the field of ID except "the diversity and complexity of life on Earth can be explained with the theory of intelligent design." This is due largely to the lack of research and communication in this matter.What I can say from an IDist standpoint is that the so-called macro-evolution process with its current accepted driving forces (mainly NS) is possible but unlikely, given the certain sets of changes a population must undergo over certain amounts of time for it to both (1) survive in its current niche and (2) have certain relationships with other populations (symbiotic, parasitic, etc.). This is an iffy issue.First of all, evolution is evolution. I don't think anyone who have seen the evidence and actually understood them can deny that evolution happens all the time in every habitat we have observed. What the theory of ID offers is an alternative mechanism to natural selection to explain both the current forms of life and the interwoven relationships that ALL species on this planet seem to share.It is not as simple as "goddunit" as many people here seem to believe. Whether it is or not a legitimate scientific approach to tackle the problem/question is another question. One thing that is for sure is it is extremely underrepresented both in the scientific community and the media.This message has been edited by GAW-Snow, 09-08-2005 03:03 AM

Again, this is somewhat of an iffy issue.Of course such a young theory as ID doesn't have an oficial position on the age or timeline of the Earth. While I agree that many who support the theory (let them be scientists or your average plumpers) support it because it bare a resemblance to their faith, in this case we shouldn't allow the ignorant view of the minority or even the majority on a subject to ruin or discredit the subject completely.After all, did the people who supported the theory of evolution in the 19th century have an official age for the Earth?I think it is a bit much to ask for a theory that lacks age, experience, research, AND supporters who actually know what the hell is going on to offer an explanation for every single question that arises from the depth of human endeavor.I tell you what. Give the theory another hundred years or so and a few billion dollars for proper research and experimentations and perhaps it will come up with both the answers to your questions and the evidence to back them up.

I don't mean for this to be demeaning, but... I've often found this to be a big source of problems for IDers / Creationists who disbelieve evolution. I really don't think that that group grasps the scale of time we're talking about.It's abstract and hard to deal with. Sort of like trying to explain how far away Saturn is. It's easy to get that it's far, it's just hard to wrap your head around how far.Same here. The scale of time we're talking about is so fantastically huge in compairison to what we experience that it's very hard to grasp.Humans study our own history and it gives us a sense of time, but it's illusionary. All of human history is a blink.What confuses me more about your post is that you say that IDers themselves can't agree on many very important factors within their own theory. (ie mechanics of, timeline of, cause of)What are we supposed to make teachers teach? It sounds like ID is less a theory than a collection of people who "don't like evolution" for either conceptual or religious reasons.

I know that your response is not entirely serious but there are actual issues here.1) ID is intentionally vague on any subject which is a matter of disagreement amongst supporting groups.2)ID talks about followign the eivdence wherever it leads. But apparently this doesn't apply when the evidence is against the religious beliefs of a significant number of ID supporters (or people that the ID movement hope to get support ffom).