Define "Intelligent Design"

[zian]

hecd2:

REALLY?? Would you like to give up …

Sure, why not? What’s a little plague and famine among friends??

hecd2:

No. There is no such thing as the law of the conservation of information.

But there is a law of increasing entropy of information. See the rack of tabloids at your local grocery for evidence. One headline for an issue I saw today read “Ten more Commandments found!!”

I could scarcely contain myself.

 

[Catholic2003]

zian:

But there is a law of increasing entropy of information.

That refers to Shannon’s definition of information, and it doesn’t apply generally, but only over a noisy communication medium. There is no conservation law relating to Kolmogorov’s definition of information, which is the one applied to DNA analysis.

 

[jim1130]

johnshelby:

i was under the impression that ID basically was
the idea that… evolution of species and of the
universe had occured, but not as a radom action,
but rather was guided by an Intellignece, ie: God…

i always thought of ID as merging the idea of a
creator or director, God, with scientifically
measured changes in the things we can observe…

but, i tend to think of things in a simplistic way…

Thank you. I appreciate your help. I am not a scholarly intellectual so I need assistance understanding. Jim

 

[jim1130]

mosher:

ID is based on science just not empirical sciences. ID is a philosophical position and not a religious one. Quite simply ID is based on this premise - Order implies Intelligence. This means that since there is observable order to the universe there must be an intelligent creative force behind that order. There are many different ways of approaching ID and some are more focused on a God who sustains the universe or a God who is nothing more than the first cause. Each brand of ID is slightly different but holds the above issues in common.

Really, I think, the problem is the definition of science these days. Strictly speaking the traditional definition of a science is “the investigation of a Direct Object.” However, post-enlightenment such things like philosophy and theology have been “kicked-out” out the science genra by intellectual pinheads who feel that science should only include such disciplines that use inductive reasoning.

Thank you. I appreciate your help. Jim

 

[jim1130]

LatinCat:

ID is not the denial of evelution. ID simply says that the universe has a complex design which suggests some kind of designer. Scientists who haven’t sacrificed their brains to the politics of the modern scientific establishement have come to this very reasonable conclusion. Now as for it being scientific, that depends on what you mean. Modern society uses the word science, usually, in reference to empirecism. However, empericism is not the only way to determine truth and, in fact, deductive logic is much better at determining truth because it PROVES truths, whereas, empericism only establishes levels of certainty. In past times, deductive reasoning was considered science and thus philosophy that employed deductive logic was considered science. That is why the medevels said, "Theology is the queen of sciences and philosophy is her hand maid. If we use the original defiinition of science: the reasonable and systematic study of basicly anything, then, of course, ID design is a science because the existence of God has been proven through the use of reason alone. Socrates did it, then Thomas Aquinas polished the proof and modern philosophers have gone further in the process of fine tuning the proof for the existence of God.
Yet, these proofs are not based on empericism and, for this reason, are not considered science by modern empericists who have hijakced the word science for their own purposes in an act of philosophical elitism. It is a bit sneaky on their part. If something agrees with their limited and falicious materialistic philosophy, they call it science. If it does not they play a psycho-social game with peoples’ minds, undermining other sciences by not calling them sciences. Even if the science that proves the existence of God is based on better reasoning than their empericism, the snear their noses at it.
Even though we need not use empericism to prove the existence of God, we can though. This is the argument based on design that most people mean when they are discussing ID. The argument goes as follows: The universe displays complex design, and thus suggest a designer. This is based on emperical data of the world around us. We look at a cell, DNA, the human mind, all emperical data, and we see a design and understand that a design requires a designer. Thus, this arguement does fit into the emperical categories that allow for it to be defined as “science” by modern empericists. They may object: But the scientific method is not employed! Its not testable, predictable, and repeatable. Well, In response I answer that neither is the science of evolution or “big bang” cosmology. We cannot precdict how they would work in the future, we cannot repaeat them, or test them because they are unrepeatable events from the past that are either too grand in scale or take too long to occur of us to test them. Yet we have a pretty good idea that they did happen, even without the scientific method, because of of the emperical data available. The same is true with ID. We have enough emeperical data to suggest that ID is a reasonable theory and probably a true theory. For anyone to deny this reality, one must remove their brain, and put away some where for safe keeping.

Thank you. This is EXTREMELY helpful! Jim

 

[LatinCat]

Ortho:

Modern natural science is limited in its scope. Those limitations are self imposed and a condition necessary for it to meet its goals. Its goals may not include answering burning questions. Modern natural science answers other questions.

Those who want to answer the burning questions have other tools and disciplines available. They are free to use them to meet their needs.

But modern natural science provides the emperical data from which we can develop a theory about the existence of God, namely that the universe is modeled after some complex design and such a design implies a designer.

 

[johnshelby]

jim1130:

Thank you. I appreciate your help. I am not a scholarly intellectual so I need assistance understanding. Jim

i’m no scholar either… plus, i look at it like this…
the more complicated an explanation, the less likely people
are going to be to accept it… especially when you are talking
about religion or faith…

 

[steveandersen]

LatinCat:

But modern natural science provides the emperical data from which we can develop a theory about the existence of God, namely that the universe is modeled after some complex design and such a design implies a designer.

How can the natural sciences provide data on the supernatural?

 

[wildleafblower]

hecd2:

REALLY?? Would you like to give up modern medicine, dentistry, modern information technology, modern jurisprudence, the death of feudalism, modern strictures against slavery and racism, electric light, central heating, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, Spenser, Eliot, Beethoven, Bach, Dickens, Elgar, Goethe, Dante, Owen, Rosenberg, the understanding of Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Weinberg, Salam, Crick, Watson, Darwin, Feynman, a vast and old universe, general anaesthetic, the inventions of Thomas Crapper, Lister, and Fleming, reason, universal suffrage, freedom of expression, the internet, the peace and prosperity of Western Europe and the USA? Would you, knowing what you know today, willingly go back to 1100AD and the conflicts, superstitions, feudalism, arbitrariness and agony of the mediaeval world? Would you really?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

no. NEVER! I lvoe William and Donne
Portia speaks! “The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea;
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.”

forgive me! i got a bit carried away… sorry…mercy on the court… i still remember this particular speech when i played portia in a play at age 13. forgive me, i couldn’t resist.

 

[Ortho]

LatinCat:

But modern natural science provides the emperical data from which we can develop a theory about the existence of God, namely that the universe is modeled after some complex design and such a design implies a designer.

I don’t think modern natural science could have a hand in that venture until it demonstrated the existence of the complex design which our universe is supposed to be modeled after.

If it did demonstrate that design, the design would be part of the universe, too.

 

[LatinCat]

Ortho:

I don’t think modern natural science could have a hand in that venture until it demonstrated the existence of the complex design which our universe is supposed to be modeled after.

If it did demonstrate that design, the design would be part of the universe, too.

Our universe composed of a complex design. If anyone cannot see this they are either mentally challenged, blind, or stubborn. Design implies a rational designer. It is that simple. Anyone who cannot see this does not have eyes to see, nor ears to hear. As a mathematician, I cannot deny the numerical percision of the universe.

 

[LatinCat]

How can the natural sciences provide data on the supernatural?
[/quote]

All I am saying is that the natural sciences provide evidence of design and design implies a designer. That simple.

 

[mosher]

johnshelby:

i’m no scholar either… plus, i look at it like this…
the more complicated an explanation, the less likely people
are going to be to accept it… especially when you are talking
about religion or faith…

This is another problem with our age that is directly associated with this issue. The first aspect of this problem is that people think that God is always a religious issue and the second aspect is that people are not taught to think in school anymore. Effectively our educational system has made us all sophists that are only interested in sound bites. Both of those problems are directly related to the single problem that reason has been lost in the American educational system and because of this the idea of ID becomes anathema to the establishment because they fear the re-entry of deductive reasoning in the area of academia.

 

[Ortho]

LatinCat:

Our universe composed of a complex design. If anyone cannot see this they are either mentally challenged, blind, or stubborn. Design implies a rational designer. It is that simple. Anyone who cannot see this does not have eyes to see, nor ears to hear. As a mathematician, I cannot deny the numerical percision of the universe.

How do you know mathematical precision must be designed? If it is observed, must it be designed?

 

[LatinCat]

Ortho:

How do you know mathematical precision must be designed? If it is observed, must it be designed?

All the the funciotns of the universe work as a machine. Machines are designed.

 

[Ortho]

LatinCat:

All the the funciotns of the universe work as a machine. Machines are designed.

We do design machines, and we can say all our machines are designed. That’s all we can say.

 

[LatinCat]

Ortho:

We do design machines, and we can say all our machines are designed. That’s all we can say.

And if we choose not to throw our brains away and if we choose not to avoid the obvious, science has shown that the universe functions like a machine functions. In fact, if we choose to maintian sanity, we can say that universe is a non-man-made machine. Of course, you are always free to abandon reatlity if you choose, my young aprentince.

 

[Ortho]

LatinCat:

And if we choose not to throw our brains away and if we choose not to avoid the obvious, science has shown that the universe functions like a machine functions. In fact, if we choose to maintian sanity, we can say that universe is a non-man-made machine. Of course, you are always free to abandon reatlity if you choose, my young aprentince.

Did you mean “apprentice?”

Towards what purpose does the universe act? All the machines we know of have a purpose. What is the purpose of the universe? Must a machine have a purpose? What purpose has science demonstrated?

 

[steveandersen]

LatinCat:

And if we choose not to throw our brains away and if we choose not to avoid the obvious, science has shown that the universe functions like a machine functions.

How so?

Natural systems, even deterministic ones, usually have a variance associated with them that designed things rarely show. In fact variance in designed things is a determent.
(I’m a designer. If there is too much variance in what I do, I get sued)

LatinCat:

In fact, if we choose to maintian sanity, we can say that universe is a non-man-made machine. Of course, you are always free to abandon reatlity if you choose, my young aprentince.

no reason to be condescending

Natural things will show evidence of what came before
While designed things can have pieces and functions swapped in an out willy-nilly.

While it may make a pretty analogy, the universe is not a machine

 

[PhilVaz]

February 15, 2006 – Catholic Answers Live

3:00 PM The Growing Dissent from Darwin with Dr. David Berlinski

4:00 PM Darwinism and Its Social Consequences with Bruce Chapman of Discovery Institute

Uh oh, we now know for sure what “side” Catholic Answers is on in this so-called “debate.” I haven’t been paying attention to CA Live lately, gotta tune in February 15. And some of you pro-evolution regulars gotta call in and give Berlinski and Chapman a piece of your mind!!!

Phil P