Intelligent Design

[balt_orioles54]

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

In that same link, it details the origins of the use of the term, which is useful to this thread:

The phrase “intelligent design” can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, in an 1850 book by Patrick Edward Dove, and in an 1861 letter from Charles Darwin. The Paleyite botanist George James Allman used the phrase in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science: “No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.” The phrase can be found again in Humanism, a 1903 book by one of the founders of classical pragmatism, F.C.S. Schiller: “It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design”. A derivative of the phrase appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article titled, “Teleological argument for the existence of God”: “Stated most succinctly, the argument runs: The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer.” Robert Nozick (1974) wrote: “Consider now complicated patterns which one would have thought would arise only through intelligent design.” The phrases “intelligent design” and “intelligently designed” were used in a 1979 philosophy book Chance or Design? by James Horigan and the phrase “intelligent design” was used in a 1982 speech by Sir Fred Hoyle in his promotion of panspermia.

That which is bolded in blue above still holds today. Rossum, your comment would be appreciated. Peace.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Then exactly what is it that you object to in Intelligent Design? If God created the universe to follow a plan of development that He designed, why split hairs about whether it was intelligently designed or self-sufficient? Obviously, it is not self-sufficiently following a plan without God. The universe wouldn’t even be here without God.

It is not about a false dichotomy between “intelligently designed” on one hand and “self-sufficient” on the other. As I said before, I believe that the laws of nature which guide the development of creation are intelligently designed, and God intelligently designed these laws to be such that physical, chemical and biological evolution following from them are self-sufficient processes that do not require His constant intervention in the sense of helping them along when they supposedly hit a road block. God just sustains the existence of creation and the physical laws that govern it. Of course you could call the sustaining of creation at every moment “intervention”, but that would be an unusual usage of the term.

What I object to is ‘Intelligent Design’ in the sense of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement a la Behe, which claims that certain biological systems have ‘irreducible complexity’ that could only have arisen by direct intervention of God in the sense of “hands on” design like a watchmaker makes a watch. The reason is two-fold:

1. There is no evidence from the actual scientific data that such intervention had to take place. The data strongly indicate that evolution is a self-sufficient process that simply follows from the laws of nature. The philosophical (not scientific) question then of course is if the laws of nature simply are what they are as a matter of brute fact (the atheistic view) or if they are designed (the theistic view).
2. Given point 1, it follows that Intelligent Design in the sense of the ID movement is lousy apologetics that weakens the case for theism (and in a more specific extension, the case for Catholic belief) rather than strengthening it. Assuming this kind of intelligent design may be comforting for certain believers, but it is absolutely useless, in fact counterproductive, as an argument for belief against unbelievers.

Arguing from the fine-tuning of the laws of nature, which completely destroys the argument from evolution that no God is needed, is a much better strategy, in my view. I have never heard from any atheist an effective argument against fine-tuning as an indicator of design. Atheist cosmologists (e.g. Hawking, Susskind, Smolin, Krauss) know that the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature is a serious problem, and resort to the philosophical (not scientific) alternative of the multiverse. This alternative is no solution to the problem, however, as I argue in my cosmological article:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

Common atheists usually dismiss the idea that fine-tuning poses a problem, and thus conveniently ignore the voice of their own cosmologists, while otherwise they always quote science in their favor (talking about ludicrous confirmation bias). But in order to dismiss the argument they have to be either woefully (and mostly, willfully) uninformed about it or resort to absurd contortionist mental gymnastics. The latter of course shows how powerful the argument really is once understood.

The usual attempts at refutation of the fine-tuning argument, among other things, show the poor rational foundation of atheism.

 

[tonyrey]

In that same link, it details the origins of the use of the term, which is useful to this thread:

The phrase “intelligent design” can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, in an 1850 book by Patrick Edward Dove, and in an 1861 letter from Charles Darwin. The Paleyite botanist George James Allman used the phrase in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science: “No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.” The phrase can be found again in Humanism, a 1903 book by one of the founders of classical pragmatism, F.C.S. Schiller: “It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design”. A derivative of the phrase appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article titled, “Teleological argument for the existence of God”: “Stated most succinctly, the argument runs: The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer.” Robert Nozick (1974) wrote: “Consider now complicated patterns which one would have thought would arise only through intelligent design.” The phrases “intelligent design” and “intelligently designed” were used in a 1979 philosophy book Chance or Design? by James Horigan and the phrase “intelligent design” was used in a 1982 speech by Sir Fred Hoyle in his promotion of panspermia.

That which is bolded in blue above still holds today. Rossum, your comment would be appreciated. Peace.

Congratulations! Your link is not only useful but essential to the history of intelligent design…

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

"Sheer coincidence is less credible than continuous control of events."

Thanks! The higher the stage of development the less likely it is to be fortuitous. By any standards the transformation of particles into persons is the most astounding achievement known to humanity…

 

[rossum]

What? Spare rooms are not useless.

Fine. You prediction of no junk DNA is reinstated. Now please indicate why the designer is incapable of inserting useless DNA into a design. I can see places where to insert such useless DNA without affecting the final output. What is preventing the designer from doing the same?

Well let us look at this a little closer. What this means is walking down the street and looking for a specific address and performing a function when found.

No. It is a metaphor, and well flagged as such. Here is a quote from the Bible: “John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God…’” [John 1:29]. Are we to take it that Jesus had four legs, had been born that year and was covered in wool? You are taking a metaphor and reading far too much into it. Merely getting into the right general area will do well enough. Refining the mechanism to get to a smaller target area is exactly the kind of thing evolution is good at. Start with a rough and ready sloppy system and make it better.

We are just beginning to get a sense of the immense sophisticated communication, signals, and interactions in the cell.

Such do indeed exist, but complexity does not necessarily imply design. Evolution can also produce complexity. So far all attempts by ID to show differently have failed. We already have experiments showing the evolution of increased complexity. Evolution is known to be capable of increasing complexity.

rossum

 

[JDaniel]

It is not about a false dichotomy between “intelligently designed” on one hand and “self-sufficient” on the other. As I said before, I believe that the laws of nature which guide the development of creation are intelligently designed, and God intelligently designed these laws to be such that physical, chemical and biological evolution following from them are self-sufficient processes that do not require His constant intervention in the sense of helping them along when they supposedly hit a road block. God just sustains the existence of creation and the physical laws that govern it. Of course you could call the sustaining of creation at every moment “intervention”, but that would be an unusual usage of the term.

What I object to is ‘Intelligent Design’ in the sense of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement a la Behe, which claims that certain biological systems have ‘irreducible complexity’ that could only have arisen by direct intervention of God in the sense of “hands on” design like a watchmaker makes a watch. The reason is two-fold:

1. There is no evidence from the actual scientific data that such intervention had to take place. The data strongly indicate that evolution is a self-sufficient process that simply follows from the laws of nature. The philosophical (not scientific) question then of course is if the laws of nature simply are what they are as a matter of brute fact (the atheistic view) or if they are designed (the theistic view).
2. Given point 1, it follows that Intelligent Design in the sense of the ID movement is lousy apologetics that weakens the case for theism (and in a more specific extension, the case for Catholic belief) rather than strengthening it. Assuming this kind of intelligent design may be comforting for certain believers, but it is absolutely useless, in fact counterproductive, as an argument for belief against unbelievers.

Arguing from the fine-tuning of the laws of nature, which completely destroys the argument from evolution that no God is needed, is a much better strategy, in my view. I have never heard from any atheist an effective argument against fine-tuning as an indicator of design. Atheist cosmologists (e.g. Hawking, Susskind, Smolin, Krauss) know that the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature is a serious problem, and resort to the philosophical (not scientific) alternative of the multiverse. This alternative is no solution to the problem, however, as I argue in my cosmological article:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

Common atheists usually dismiss the idea that fine-tuning poses a problem, and thus conveniently ignore the voice of their own cosmologists, while otherwise they always quote science in their favor (talking about ludicrous confirmation bias). But in order to dismiss the argument they have to be either woefully (and mostly, willfully) uninformed about it or resort to absurd contortionist mental gymnastics. The latter of course shows how powerful the argument really is once understood.

The usual attempts at refutation of the fine-tuning argument, among other things, show the poor rational foundation of atheism.

Al:

The problem isn’t “strategy,” it’s logic, i.e., truth. Our God is infinite. I repeat, Infinite. That being so, then either the universe is a bubble within Him, or, God co-permeates “everything.” If God co-permeates everything, then God would have his ‘fingers on the trigger of everything’, so to speak. In other words, He would be touching and in touch with every atom, every molecule, every cell, every specified group of cells, every organ, every body, in other words, Everything. Think this through. If God has His Finger on Everything, does it make logical sense that he is not in some way affecting and effecting each and every quantum particle - in the universe?

God could certainly affect and effect “everything.” Without this being pantheistic. His affects may be simply the ‘stuff’ that makes quantum particles adhere, in order that the higher forms maintain continuity. And/Or, the ‘stuff’ that keeps things in existence thus fulfilling His own laws of thermodynamics. And/Or, the secondary motions that He is the Prime Mover of. So, the idea of God’s infinite sustaining power is not in any way compromised by God designing - all throughout the duration of existing things. I really don’t see how this weakens the Catholic position?

The universe cannot be a bubble inside Him. Even that defies logic, and the un-stupid defintion of “infinity.”

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

It is not about a false dichotomy between “intelligently designed” on one hand and “self-sufficient” on the other. As I said before, I believe that the laws of nature which guide the development of creation are intelligently designed, and God intelligently designed these laws to be such that physical, chemical and biological evolution following from them are self-sufficient processes that do not require His constant intervention in the sense of helping them along when they supposedly hit a road block. God just sustains the existence of creation and the physical laws that govern it. Of course you could call the sustaining of creation at every moment “intervention”, but that would be an unusual usage of the term.

What I object to is ‘Intelligent Design’ in the sense of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement a la Behe, which claims that certain biological systems have ‘irreducible complexity’ that could only have arisen by direct intervention of God in the sense of “hands on” design like a watchmaker makes a watch. The reason is two-fold:

1. There is no evidence from the actual scientific data that such intervention had to take place. The data strongly indicate that evolution is a self-sufficient process that simply follows from the laws of nature. The philosophical (not scientific) question then of course is if the laws of nature simply are what they are as a matter of brute fact (the atheistic view) or if they are designed (the theistic view).
2. Given point 1, it follows that Intelligent Design in the sense of the ID movement is lousy apologetics that weakens the case for theism (and in a more specific extension, the case for Catholic belief) rather than strengthening it. Assuming this kind of intelligent design may be comforting for certain believers, but it is absolutely useless, in fact counterproductive, as an argument for belief against unbelievers.

The fact that life on earth has almost become extinct on several occasions is evidence that physical processes **alone **do not guarantee the survival and development of living organisms. Belief in Providence entails direct preservation by God when it becomes necessary. Even scientists without any religious belief have conceded that the most advanced forms of life are less likely to have developed or survived than the simplest organisms - which have outlasted many other species. Both size and complexity are handicaps when it comes to survival because there is more risk of accident or malfunction. There are so many threats to life on this dangerous planet that its continued existence for over three billion years is miraculous and presupposes continuous control and supervision to offset the element of chance in any immensely complex physical system which causes a colossal amount of death and destruction. Our God is not the remote deity of the deists who sets the universe in motion and takes no further interest in the proceedings but a loving Father who watches over His children and cares for them directly at every opportunity.

Arguing from the fine-tuning of the laws of nature, which completely destroys the argument from evolution that no God is needed, is a much better strategy, in my view. I have never heard from any atheist an effective argument against fine-tuning as an indicator of design. Atheist cosmologists (e.g. Hawking, Susskind, Smolin, Krauss) know that the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature is a serious problem, and resort to the philosophical (not scientific) alternative of the multiverse. This alternative is no solution to the problem, however, as I argue in my cosmological article:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

Common atheists usually dismiss the idea that fine-tuning poses a problem, and thus conveniently ignore the voice of their own cosmologists, while otherwise they always quote science in their favor (talking about ludicrous confirmation bias). But in order to dismiss the argument they have to be either woefully (and mostly, willfully) uninformed about it or resort to absurd contortionist mental gymnastics. The latter of course shows how powerful the argument really is once understood.

The usual attempts at refutation of the fine-tuning argument, among other things, show the poor rational foundation of atheism.

I entirely agree with you!

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al:

The problem isn’t “strategy,” it’s logic, i.e., truth. Our God is infinite. I repeat, Infinite. That being so, then either the universe is a bubble within Him, or, God co-permeates “everything.” If God co-permeates everything, then God would have his ‘fingers on the trigger of everything’, so to speak. In other words, He would be touching and in touch with every atom, every molecule, every cell, every specified group of cells, every organ, every body, in other words, Everything. Think this through. If God has His Finger on Everything, does it make logical sense that he is not in some way affecting and effecting each and every quantum particle - in the universe?

I completely agree with you. That God would have his ‘fingers on the trigger of everything’ is implied in his sustaining creation at every moment (I have emphasized the point of sustaining creation several times now). But this is not ‘intervention’ in the sense that the ID movement espouses – helping the laws of nature along when they do not suffice in creating ‘irreducible complexity’ (which they certainly suffice for, contra ID movement).

God could certainly affect and effect “everything.” Without this being pantheistic. His affects may be simply the ‘stuff’ that makes quantum particles adhere, in order that the higher forms maintain continuity. And/Or, the ‘stuff’ that keeps things in existence thus fulfilling His own laws of thermodynamics. And/Or, the secondary motions that He is the Prime Mover of. So, the idea of God’s infinite sustaining power is not in any way compromised by God designing - all throughout the duration of existing things. I really don’t see how this weakens the Catholic position?

My point was precisely that God does not work like a watchmaker makes a watch, or an artisan an artifact. That would be the ‘Intelligent Design’ position of the ID movement that I oppose and that is not supported by the scientific data (see my previous post).

 

[buffalo]

I completely agree with you. That God would have his ‘fingers on the trigger of everything’ is implied in his sustaining creation at every moment (I have emphasized the point of sustaining creation several times now). But this is not ‘intervention’ in the sense that the ID movement espouses – helping the laws of nature along when they do not suffice in creating ‘irreducible complexity’ (which they certainly suffice for, contra ID movement).

My point was precisely that God does not work like a watchmaker makes a watch, or an artisan an artifact. That would be the ‘Intelligent Design’ position of the ID movement that I oppose and that is not supported by the scientific data (see my previous post).

Can you give a source that shows ID is interventionist?

 

[Al_Moritz]

The fact that life on earth has almost become extinct on several occasions is evidence that physical processes **alone **do not guarantee the survival and development of living organisms. Belief in Providence entails direct preservation by God when it becomes necessary. Even scientists without any religious belief have conceded that the most advanced forms of life are less likely to have developed or survived than the simplest organisms - which have outlasted many other species. Both size and complexity are handicaps when it comes to survival because there is more risk of accident or malfunction. There are so many threats to life on this dangerous planet that its continued existence for over three billion years is miraculous and presupposes continuous control and supervision to offset the element of chance in any immensely complex physical system which causes a colossal amount of death and destruction. Our God is not the remote deity of the deists who sets the universe in motion and takes no further interest in the proceedings but a loving Father who watches over His children and cares for them directly at every opportunity.

Yet don’t forget that, since God is outside time, He would have known beforehand, when he designed the laws of nature and the Big Bang, how things would turn out.

No need to wait how things go and then continually supervising them. Again, sustaining creation at every moment is different from ‘supervision’ – His supervision would already have been completed upon design of the whole thing. No need to ‘steer things along’.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Can you give a source that shows ID is interventionist?

Well, if God ‘swooshed down to Earth’ 4 billion years ago to put the first bacterium together, or if he designed the first blot clotting cascade, like Michael Behe suggests, that would certainly be interventionist, wouldn’t it?

 

[buffalo]

Well, if God ‘swooshed down to Earth’ 4 billion years ago to put the first bacterium together, or if he designed the first blot clotting cascade, like Michael Behe suggests, that would certainly be interventionist, wouldn’t it?

If it came in His breath of creation it is not the same as intervening 1000 years later to make a fix.

 

[tonyrey]

Yet don’t forget that, since God is outside time, He would have known beforehand, when he designed the laws of nature and the Big Bang, how things would turn out.

No need to wait how things go and then continually supervising them. Again, sustaining creation at every moment is different from ‘supervision’ – His supervision would already have been completed upon design of the whole thing. No need to ‘steer things along’.

Of course God knows the outcome but we don’t! From our point of view His intervention does occur in time. Your objection implies that He never works miracles (!) to offset the harmful effects of evil decisions by men or disasters caused by the vagaries of chance.

Don’t you believe God ever suspends the laws of nature? Or are they beyond His control once they have been set in motion? Your view is equivalent to pantheism because it neglects God’s dynamic creativity. It implies He is a Gigantic Machine incapable of modifying what He has decreed. In other words He is a Slave of His own Laws!

Let me repeat: Our God is not the remote deity of the deists who sets the universe in motion and takes no further interest in the proceedings but a loving Father who watches over His children and cares for us directly at every opportunity.

 

[grannymh]

Of course God knows the outcome but we don’t! From our point of view His intervention does occur in time. Your objection implies that He never works miracles (!) to offset the harmful effects of evil decisions by men or disasters caused by the vagaries of chance.

Don’t you believe God ever suspends the laws of nature? Or are they beyond His control once they have been set in motion? Your view is equivalent to pantheism because it neglects God’s dynamic creativity. It implies He is a Gigantic Machine incapable of modifying what He has decreed. In other words He is a Slave of His own Laws!

Let me repeat: Our God is not the remote deity of the deists who sets the universe in motion and takes no further interest in the proceedings but a loving Father who watches over His children and cares for us directly at every opportunity.

Rather than replying directly to this post, may I point out that the actions of God are not an “either-or” situation. Furthermore, it is not to our advantage to assume that a single statement about God automatically implies a negative.

Regarding miracles. From a very incomplete research of the literature, I have come across how scientists sometimes explain the unexplainable. They use the term “extraordinary phenomenon.” This does not deny natural phenomenon. This does not imply a direct change of phenomenon. It simply says that there is an occurrence beyond ordinary phenomenon. This occurrence is extra to what normally happens.

God sustaining creation is found in the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *paragraph 301 There is nothing about sustaining creation which would eliminate miracles.

While CCC 1257 relates to the Catholic Sacraments, its last sentence may help us to understand how God is not restricted in any way. “God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments.”

One of the effects of ID for me personally is that I feel boxed in. This is because I know that general Christianity is not in perfect step with Catholicism. With ID emphasis on science, I keep wondering if it ever addresses the spiritual soul. However, this would mean monogenism which is not automatically accepted by some Christians, including some Catholics.

Within its own philosophical domain, intelligent design can demonstrate a creator. I simply believe that flat out Catholicism does more to explain life.

Blessings,
granny

*John 14: 15-17 *

 

[Nullasalus]

Well, if God ‘swooshed down to Earth’ 4 billion years ago to put the first bacterium together, or if he designed the first blot clotting cascade, like Michael Behe suggests, that would certainly be interventionist, wouldn’t it?

Behe holds no position on “how” irreducible complexity showed up in biology, nor does he claim that ID shows “God designed the first blood clotting cascade”. Nor does he insist that IC must show up in an interventionary way - it could have developed over time. What he argues is that Darwinian mechanisms could not have done the job, and that design is a reasonable inference.

Note two things: 1) “Design” can manifest in a tremendous number of ways, including 2) what seems to be your own view, namely that of God setting up initial conditions at any given point so as to guarantee or make likely a particular result. (Front-loading, etc.)

Lynn Margulis believes that natural selection and random variation can’t accomplish much of anything in terms of creating complex structures, but I doubt anyone would claim Margulis is therefore suggesting that the only way such things can arise therefore must be “God swooshing down to earth”.

Either way, suggesting that “God swooshing” is how Behe argues these things were accomplished, to say nothing of the idea that his view requires this, is flat-out incorrect.

But I want to stress one thing in addition here, Al. If you are seriously suggesting that God, existing outside of time, used evolution as a tool - that is, God knew what the results of the evolutionary process would be and intended them - you must recognize that by the standards of quite a few people, you are an ID proponent, and you certainly reject “Darwinism”.

 

[grannymh]

The fact that life on earth has almost become extinct on several occasions is evidence that physical processes **alone **do not guarantee the survival and development of living organisms.

Being able to walk on both sides of the street up the middle at the same time, I find this statement as being loaded with controversy depending on how one looks at human nature. I most likely will address this at some point on my thread in Back Fence since I am looking at human nature from a variety of angles, some of which are banned in this forum.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

Behe holds no position on “how” irreducible complexity showed up in biology, nor does he claim that ID shows “God designed the first blood clotting cascade”. Nor does he insist that IC must show up in an interventionary way - it could have developed over time. What he argues is that Darwinian mechanisms could not have done the job, and that design is a reasonable inference.

Note two things: 1) “Design” can manifest in a tremendous number of ways, including 2) what seems to be your own view, namely that of God setting up initial conditions at any given point so as to guarantee or make likely a particular result. (Front-loading, etc.)

Lynn Margulis believes that natural selection and random variation can’t accomplish much of anything in terms of creating complex structures, but I doubt anyone would claim Margulis is therefore suggesting that the only way such things can arise therefore must be “God swooshing down to earth”.

Either way, suggesting that “God swooshing” is how Behe argues these things were accomplished, to say nothing of the idea that his view requires this, is flat-out incorrect.

But I want to stress one thing in addition here, Al. If you are seriously suggesting that God, existing outside of time, used evolution as a tool - that is, God knew what the results of the evolutionary process would be and intended them - you must recognize that by the standards of quite a few people, you are an ID proponent, and you certainly reject “Darwinism”.

Being an ID proponent cannot be considered automatic as you suggested to Al. “Al. If you are seriously suggesting that God, existing outside of time, used evolution as a tool - that is, God knew what the results of the evolutionary process would be and intended them - you must recognize that by the standards of quite a few people, you are an ID proponent, and you certainly reject “Darwinism”.”

Over time, I have been e-mailing people whom CAF posters have suggested as ID leaders/proponents. . I will post one of the return e-mails. In my humble opinion, ID is limited to the point that I cannot accept it even if in some respects it coincides with some of my ideas.

Blessings,
granny

All persons are sacred because each is an unique creation by a loving Creator.

 

[Nullasalus]

Being an ID proponent cannot be considered automatic as you suggested to Al.

I didn’t say that it was “automatic”. I said that by the standards of quite a few people, Al’s stated views on nature and biology is just a form of intelligent design, as well as a rejection of “Darwinism”.

On whether Al really is an ID proponent, that’s trickier. No, I think by the standards of Behe and Dembski - unless Al thinks that one can infer design and intelligence in nature through science (and indications are he doesn’t think this, and that such inferences are philosophical) - Al is not an ID proponent. By the standards of Jerry Coyne and others? He is. And by most reasonable standards, the view of evolution he has is a view that rejects Darwinism. Not evolution, but certainly Darwinism.

For the record, I myself think ID is problematic for a number of reasons. The problem is that I think atheistic views of evolution are equally problematic, and have been far more prominent.

 

[buffalo]

Consider the quantum effects of prayer on the universe.

Is an answered prayer interventionist?

 

[grannymh]

I didn’t say that it was “automatic”. I said that by the standards of quite a few people, Al’s stated views on nature and biology is just a form of intelligent design, as well as a rejection of “Darwinism”.

On whether Al really is an ID proponent, that’s trickier. No, I think by the standards of Behe and Dembski - unless Al thinks that one can infer design and intelligence in nature through science (and indications are he doesn’t think this, and that such inferences are philosophical) - Al is not an ID proponent. By the standards of Jerry Coyne and others? He is. And by most reasonable standards, the view of evolution he has is a view that rejects Darwinism. Not evolution, but certainly Darwinism.

For the record, I myself think ID is problematic for a number of reasons. The problem is that I think atheistic views of evolution are equally problematic, and have been far more prominent.

Thank you for your clarification regarding automatic. For the record. I have just started to clarify my problems with ID in general.

Blessings,
granny

Matthew, Chapter 28