Intelligent Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter ShivanCommander
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

ShivanCommander

Guest
Hello, just seeing what everyone’s thoughts are on intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe were created by a highly sophisticated entity known as the intelligent designer, or intelligent agent. This intelligent designer then created the universe to it’s own specifications and created life in it. It’s a non-religious view on creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution and natural selection. What are your thoughts on intelligent design?

More Info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
 
Hello, just seeing what everyone’s thoughts are on intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe were created by a highly sophisticated entity known as the intelligent designer, or intelligent agent. This intelligent designer then created the universe to it’s own specifications and created life in it. It’s a non-religious view on creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution and natural selection. What are your thoughts on intelligent design?

More Info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
My first thought on this is that the wikipedia article you referenced provides an excellent example of why Wikipedia should not be used for anything beyond entertainment purposes - sort of like “The Onion.”
 
Hello, just seeing what everyone’s thoughts are on intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe were created by a highly sophisticated entity known as the intelligent designer, or intelligent agent. This intelligent designer then created the universe to it’s own specifications and created life in it. It’s a non-religious view on creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution and natural selection. What are your thoughts on intelligent design?

More Info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
From your link:

“It is also a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer.”

Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of “creation science” in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.”

Denying God would be a hinderance to grace.
 
Hello, just seeing what everyone’s thoughts are on intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe were created by a highly sophisticated entity known as the intelligent designer, or intelligent agent. This intelligent designer then created the universe to it’s own specifications and created life in it. It’s a non-religious view on creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution and natural selection. What are your thoughts on intelligent design?

More Info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
an intelligent mind created this.Theists believe God created this but don’t claim to knnow how He created it.He could have created it ov er time or instantaniously.Evolution is not disregarded.But theists don’t believe everything evolved from a dense point which exploded.Humans and species were created uniquely.A man didn’t evolve from an ape through natural selection.An ape can evlove into numerous varieties but he can’t evolve into a dog in no matter how many changes take place.
 
My first thought on this is that the wikipedia article you referenced provides an excellent example of why Wikipedia should not be used for anything beyond entertainment purposes - sort of like “The Onion.”
:rotfl:

To OP: What of the argument? I wouldn’t say it’s a non-religious application because if we affirm that the universe is intelligently designed then we must observe a reason for this design, an end goal or finality.

“Every agent acts for an end” St. Aquinas.
 
Do intelligent designers believe in evolution? Because if not we have a problem.
 
First let us start with the definition of ID.

Definition of Intelligent Design
Code:
                                      What is 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.
Code:
                  See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.
           
                                                **Is intelligent design the same as 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. 					
                     	        
           
                                                **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.
 
Do intelligent designers believe in evolution? Because if not we have a problem.
My background is in engineering, and I know many intelligent designers. Some of them believe in evolution, and some don’t. It doesn’t seem to me to be a problem one way or the other.

Or if you’re asking whether [God=Intelligent Designer] believes in evolution - I guess you’ll have to ask him when you see him face to face.

BTW - we can’t get into any kind of discussion of evolution itself on this forum since so far as I know it is still banned.

ricmat
 
My background is in engineering, and I know many intelligent designers. Some of them believe in evolution, and some don’t. It doesn’t seem to me to be a problem one way or the other.

Or if you’re asking whether [God=Intelligent Designer] believes in evolution - I guess you’ll have to ask him when you see him face to face.

BTW - we can’t get into any kind of discussion of evolution itself on this forum since so far as I know it is still banned.

ricmat
Yeah - this will have to be eventually moved to the back fence.
 
Hello, just seeing what everyone’s thoughts are on intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe were created by a highly sophisticated entity known as the intelligent designer, or intelligent agent. This intelligent designer then created the universe to it’s own specifications and created life in it. It’s a non-religious view on creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution and natural selection. What are your thoughts on intelligent design?

More Info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
There is a lot of confusion about Intelligent Design. This is primarily because there are two meaning in common use.

  1. *]ID is the belief that the universe is created by an intelligent entity, usually called YHWH/God/Allah.
    *]ID is the belief that biological organisms in particular are directly designed by an unspecified intelligent entity and that signs of this design are scientifically detectable.

    The first type of ID is common to all three Abrahamic religions. It can be complatible with evolution in the sense that Theistic Evolutinoists say, God creates the universe and evolution is one of the methods He uses. Young Earth Creationism is another form of this version of ID, which of course is scientifically controversial. There is no necessary scientific controversy about this type of ID since it does not say anything that falls within the remit of science.

    The second type of ID is far more controversial since it denies the sufficiency of evolution and claims to have evidence for the intervention of their proposed, but deliberately unspecified, designer. This second form of ID is supported by the Discovery Institute (DI), and is a political subterfuge designed to work round the American constitutional prohibition on religion in the classroom. Since the Dover decision it is effectively dead for that purpose and the DI has switched to its “Teach the Controversy” strategy. Not all ID2 supporters have got that message yet.

    ID2 was a political strategy that tried to look sciency. It failed but the corpse is still twitching. Enough of it needs to be kept alive to allow the appearance of a ‘controversy’ that can be taught as per the current DI push into legislation.

    rossum
 
The second type of ID is far more controversial since it denies the sufficiency of evolution and claims to have evidence for the intervention of their proposed, but deliberately unspecified, designer. This second form of ID is supported by the Discovery Institute (DI), and is a political subterfuge designed to work round the American constitutional prohibition on religion in the classroom. Since the Dover decision it is effectively dead for that purpose and the DI has switched to its “Teach the Controversy” strategy. Not all ID2 supporters have got that message yet.

ID2 was a political strategy that tried to look sciency. It failed but the corpse is still twitching. Enough of it needs to be kept alive to allow the appearance of a ‘controversy’ that can be taught as per the current DI push into legislation.

rossum
You were doing so well until…😦

Intervention? Not necessarily so.

Political subterfuge? Who here does not want the truth taught to children?

A judge determines what is true or not? Laughable. Dover means nothing. The Truth About the Dover Intelligent Design Trial
 
Why do we have a problem if intelligent designers don’t believe in evolution? It was pretty obvious what I was saying “why” about.

DaveBj
Because I find it pretty ignorant to not believe in evolution. That’s like saying gravity doesn’t exist.
 
There is a lot of confusion about Intelligent Design.
Yes there is. The remainder of your post below illustrates this very well.
This is primarily because there are two meaning in common use.

  1. *]ID is the belief that the universe is created by an intelligent entity, usually called YHWH/God/Allah.
    *]ID is the belief that biological organisms in particular are directly designed by an unspecified intelligent entity and that signs of this design are scientifically detectable.

    The first type of ID is common to all three Abrahamic religions. It can be complatible with evolution in the sense that Theistic Evolutinoists say, God creates the universe and evolution is one of the methods He uses. Young Earth Creationism is another form of this version of ID, which of course is scientifically controversial. There is no necessary scientific controversy about this type of ID since it does not say anything that falls within the remit of science.

  1. So design has nothing to do with science? Engineers should be told that immediately!
    The second type of ID is far more controversial since it denies the sufficiency of evolution and claims to have evidence for the intervention of their proposed, but deliberately unspecified, designer.
    “Denies the sufficiency of…” But isn’t the scientific method all about questioning the current system, making improvements to the model, looking for a better solution, etc. You say that all the time. Have you changed your mind? Copernicus denied the sufficiency of the Ptolemaic system. How terrible that was too :rolleyes:

    “Denying the sufficiency of…” I’ve heard Protestants use this same phraseology when accusing Catholics of denying the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. I guess Rossum interprets this as a religious battle of his dogma over ID dogma. And to deny his dogmal is a sort of “mortal sin.” Well, I guess that happens when certain aspects of science take on religious overtones. It’s funny that I don’t hear it coming from the ID side.
    This second form of ID is supported by the Discovery Institute (DI), and is a political subterfuge designed to work round the American constitutional prohibition on religion in the classroom. Since the Dover decision it is effectively dead for that purpose and the DI has switched to its “Teach the Controversy” strategy. Not all ID2 supporters have got that message yet.

    ID2 was a political strategy that tried to look sciency. It failed but the corpse is still twitching. Enough of it needs to be kept alive to allow the appearance of a ‘controversy’ that can be taught as per the current DI push into legislation.

    rossum
    Wow, another conspiracy theory. DON"T BELIEVE IT folks.

    If you want accurate information on e.g. what the Catholic Church actually teaches, don’t go to the Calvary Chapel website, or 7th Day Adventist website. Go to the Vatican site. If you want accurate information about the goals of the Discovery Institute, go to the Discovery Institute site (which Buffalo has excerpted from in his post above).

    ricmat
 
Because I find it pretty ignorant to not believe in evolution. That’s like saying gravity doesn’t exist.
Which type of evolution? See we have evolution of everything below humans, which is plausible… and absolutely no connections between humans and any transitional species. Humans didn’t evolve from anything, microbiologists have proven that to be the case. And the usual retort is, the fossil records are incomplete. So it isn’t a theory, just a hypothesis. 👍
 
I suggest getting a copy of Programming of Life by Donald E. Johnson.

Peace,
Ed
 
Which type of evolution? See we have evolution of everything below humans, which is plausible… and absolutely no connections between humans and any transitional species. Humans didn’t evolve from anything, microbiologists have proven that to be the case. And the usual retort is, the fossil records are incomplete. So it isn’t a theory, just a hypothesis. 👍
Over and over the fossil record is showing abrupt appearance and then stasis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top