My experience with your suggested approach has always led to criticisms of my “summaries”. Of course they can be criticized, they are only a summary.
Well, criticism of a summary is kind of the whole point. Even if you quoted the whole book it can be criticized.
That being said, one reason is that we know that intelligent designers exist and can design really neat stuff. We have no actual proof that natural processes can create complex really neat stuff. BTW - the counter argument that usually comes up at this point is that “Here we are, so that proves that evolution did it, somehow.”
I didn’t dispute any of this and it wasn’t my point.
If you want to dismiss ID on the basis of my humble summaries, and no doubt incomplete understanding, then do so. But wouldn’t it be better to reject it for a good reason?
So you are in no doubt my understanding of ID is incomplete? Interesting. I would guess you are also saying that I am rejecting it as a theory - not strictly true, nothing wrong with the actual theory it’s what it hopes to achieve I have difficulty with and I thought I made that clear - you are also saying any of the arguments I have outlined in relation to ID are good ones. Fair enough. No reason why you think they are good ones. However, you don’t outline why you don’t think they are good reasons. Your responses appear only to relate to the validity of ID, not the reasons I would question it.
There are no doubt some with sinister religious intentions (such as getting people to believe in God).
I wouldn’t call getting people to believe in God a sinister religious intention.
But the methods of ID stand apart from the intentions of those involved, and stand or fall on their own.
The scientific methods used by ID wasn’t something I questioned.
From a scientific perspective, there is a tendency to say “Evolution did it, happened randomly, no purpose at all, just a big accident, end of story.” This would obviously bring science to a halt.
There is? That’s news to me.
On the other hand, if you assume that e.g. DNA is “designed”, and has many purposes, a person with a questioning mind would try to determine in more detail how the design works, how did the design first appear, who designed it, etc. Answering these questions would obviously be of great benefit. DNA does in fact have attributes for information storage integrity (fault protection, fault correction) which are very similar to those designed by humans. And there are multiple layers of data integrity and encryption. Fascinating stuff.
Your opening sentence here says ‘if you assume DNA is designed.’ Was one of my criticisms of ID not it requires assuming, (or perhaps I used the word ‘belief’) the existence of and intelligent designer?
I think it is important to realize that ID is not just a “Darwinism alternative.” First, it encompasses much more including e.g. fine tuning arguments in cosmology, etc. Second, ID does not dismiss neo-Darwinism in total.
Think that one was sorted.
It’s why it sets out to challenge one specific aspect of it that’s in question.
There is little controversy over the data (evidence) itself. IMO the real controversy is the “random” versus “designed or guided” focus. Looking at how chemistry works, how the laws of the universe work, and the mathematics of probabilistic resources, it becomes apparent that “random” just doesn’t get you there - even when natural selection if involved. For natural selection to work, the “random” mutations have to be there to begin with, and there just isn’t enough time or enough “stuff” for it to occur randomly (i.e.without guidance).
Designs are not random. Random designs don’t work. Designed processes are more efficient.
That’s getting into all the theories which doesn’t relate to my post. In any case, I believe in God and I think He can pretty much do what He wants. If He wants to design, He will. If He wants things to happen randomly, they will and they will ‘work’ because of God’s purpose.
OK. But personal agendas are not the same as professional agendas. We all have personal agendas, don’t we?
Nothing wrong with having an agenda. Disguising the agenda is another matter because it is deceptive.
Those are religious beliefs which have nothing to do with ID.
OK. Perhaps there are many who see ID as have nothing to do with religious belief, and perhaps I’ve been unfortunate in that everyone I’ve met personally who advocates ID is a fanatical fundamentalist Christian. However, my interest lies in the relationship between science and religion, and the relationship between of the findings of modern science and modern developments in biblical scholarship. It is for this reason I would say that ID of any real benefit to me personally, or in furthering this area of theology.
It seems that some folks here have a problem with getting people to believe in God (not you I’m talking about here).