Great little series on evolution

[buffalo]

ID theory seems to propose an intelligent designer that created architectural types and built in adaptations without actually allowing for speciation to occur.

Uh no, speciation which is lineage splitting and built-in adaptability are what we observe. There is no evidence for speciation (macro evolution).

Indeed, there is ID the science and ID the philosophy.

Wrong. There are a number of peer-reviewd papers and ID is producing more everyday. These are know having to be dealt with by the top evo’s and why they are moving beyond the modern synthesis. The Royal Society participants after recognizing the points ID is making said they will continue to study as long as they keep God out of it.

 

[buffalo]

nit picking weaknesses is also a part of the scientific method…

Just that when religious persons do it, the world rejects it.

An excellent point. Science is provisional and should be up to scrutiny. If it will not deal with challenges it is not real science.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

My understanding of ID ( which could be off base ) is that it was, at least originally, intended as a way to teach Creationism without calling it Creationism. They didn’t say “God did it” but that “intelligence is necessary”.

I personally have never heard ID explained without inclusion of evolutionary theory. That may be a failing on my part, but my experience of ID it’s essentially God-guided evolution.

 

[sealabeag]

Sorry for my slow reply. Here’s some differences between Creationism and Intelligent design:

• Intelligent Design is not a religious theory, regardless of whether or not those who follow the theory are religious. Intelligent Design does not posit a theory about who “the designer” is, as it is a scientific, not religious, theory. It simply says that the world appears to have been designed, whereas Creationism is a primarily religious theory, coming generally from a strictly literal, fundamentalist reading of the Bible, which believes things, for example, like a literal 7 day creation week, that the world was created around 6 thousand years ago, etc. Creationism moves forward from certain premises, namely literalist Biblical ones, whereas ID does no such thing. It follows the scientific method and carries no presuppositions.
• Creationists do not identify with Intelligent Design theory and vice verse. I imagine a scientist who follows the theory of Intelligent Design would be pretty offended if you called him a Creationist. Creationism is first and foremost concerned with religion - taking scientific discoveries and attempting to explain, or explain them away, in light of the Bible. It is not concerned with scientific discovery for it’s own sake, but is really a kind of Christian school of science-apologetics.
• As I’ve kind of already mentioned, Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, Creationism is a religious theory. Think of it like this - Darwinism had certain implications for a Biblical worldview, but the theory itself was just that - a scientific theory, it was not a commentary on religion. It was up to philosophers and theologians to deal with the consequences of the theory and its implications for religion. In the same way, ID is a scientific theory - it does not comment on religion, although the theory carries implications that each religion must deal with. The scientists, however, don’t do the religious aplogetics. They just present the science.
• Creationism excludes Darwinism totally. Intelligent design does not - although it is often critical of the theory it does so in a scientific, not religious, manner.

That’s just some of my observations, may be a little helpful!

 

[whatistrue]

Intelligent Design is not a religious theory, regardless of whether or not those who follow the theory are religious.

Creationists do not identify with Intelligent Design theory and vice verse.

As I’ve kind of already mentioned, Intelligent Design is a scientific theory,

Actually, not so much. For example, see Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover Area School District (M.D. Pa 2005), where teaching ID in public school biology classes was found to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was found to be creationism by another name, and is generally regarded by actual scientists as a pseudoscience. As an aside, and asserting no relevance, the judge who tried the case and issued the Findings of Fact and the decision was a Republican appointed by George W. Bush.

 

[sealabeag]

Ah ok, I just thought you wanted information on the differences, not an argument.

 

[whatistrue]

I would like accurate information. If my understanding is in error, I want to know it. But a simple assertion that one is religious and the other is science, when that has been established not to be the case, is not what I am after.

 

[sealabeag]

What element of Intelligent Design do you find unscientific?

 

[whatistrue]

The quick (and maybe a bit snarky) answer would be “all of it”. But to be more fair, what I have seen of it starts with the assumption that it is impossible for the universe to have formed without direction by an intelligence. That’s a large assumption to come at the beginning, and smacks of begging the question.

In an earlier post I talked about theistic evolution, which supposes that evolution as described today is truth, but that it is directed at least in a small way by God. I think this is unscientific as well, even if I accept it as true; science cannot speak to that which cannot be measured (e.g. God).

 

[sealabeag]

No, intelligent design starts with no assumption. It’s simply a scientific theory, regardless of whether some who are deeply entrenched in Darwinism can accept it as such. It’s main premise is that since everything we see in the world gives the appearance of having been designed, perhaps that quite simply is the case. If, after investigation, a conclusion that the universe could not have formed as it is without an intelligence is reached, what would be the problem with that conclusion? Btw, Darwinism is being questioned more and more, and there is growing dissatisfaction with it as a theory, so these questions will become more prominent in coming years.
The words “theistic evolution” are indeed unscientific, as they mix science and religion. You can be both a theist and accept the theory of evolution, but to say “I am a theistic Darwinist” or somesuch, is in my opinion unnecessary. And you’re right - science does not speak about God. Intelligent Design doesn’t speak about God, either. As I said, it is a theory that states that the world appears to have been designed. God may be inferred by others, but not by the science.

 

[buffalo]

Actually, not so much. For example, see Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover Area School District (M.D. Pa 2005) , where teaching ID in public school biology classes was found to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

We are well past this farce of a trial. We do not do science by judges. If ID the science cannot be in science class then non-empirical evolution can’t be wither.

 

[buffalo]

I would like accurate information. If my understanding is in error, I want to know it. But a simple assertion that one is religious and the other is science, when that has been established not to be the case, is not what I am after.

The Definition of Intelligent Design​

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Is Intelligent Design Creationism?​

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

 

[buffalo]

Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?​

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

What Is Intelligent Design? | Intelligent Design

 

[whatistrue]

deeply entrenched in Darwinism

Can we have a discussion about this without taking shots at the competition?

it is a theory that states that the world appears to have been designed.

The statement as you have presented it is an hypothesis; it takes more than that to make a theory. What are some predictions that ID has made and that have been shown to be correct, for example?

 

[sealabeag]

Can we have a discussion about this without taking shots at the competition?

We can, but why? It is entirely relevant to the discussion. You raised the point that many scientists do not accept ID as science. I said the above as a reason why. Some are so entrenched in various worldviews that they are unable to see beyond it. That fact makes ID no less scientific.

Ok then it’s a hypothesis, fine. I’m not really here to convince you that Intelligent Design is valid, there’s a wealth of information online that will be helpful if you want to know more!

 

[sealabeag]

PS I’m sure there may be others here with more knowledge and time to debate this topic with you, why not start a thread of your own? Expect it to be messy, but feel free.

 

[whatistrue]

Some are so entrenched in various worldviews that they are unable to see beyond it.

Funny how that works on all sorts of people.

there’s a wealth of information online

How about we start there instead of back and forth tidbits derailing the thread? Give me the best reference sites you have (whatever number there happen to be; I won’t be picky on that) and I can look them over at my leisure and respond (possibly with a new thread) when done. Links would be best, but site names or something else that would lead me as directly as possible to the sites you think represent the position the best are fine as well.

 

[sealabeag]

Funny how that works on all sorts of people.

I assume you’re referring to me? On this particular topic I can honestly say I’m not entrenched. I’ve looked at a range of arguments from Darwinism and Intelligent Design and find the arguments of Intelligent Design compelling whilst remaining open to new arguments and science. That’s all. I don’t usually get into debates about it.
Nor am I by any means an expert lol, I just started this thread to share a video series! Maybe you could have a look at that series and see what you think. It’s interesting.
I will get back to you with some links, sure.

 

[buffalo]

Any discussion of who or what the designer is would be philosophy. Science by its own definition cannot speak to this.

 

[whatistrue]

I assume you’re referring to me?

Not exclusively, no. I think we all (myself included) tend to stick with what we “know”, even if what we know ain’t actually so.

ETA: Yes, the grammar and word choice were deliberate, even if not the way I would ordinarily write.