One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[buffalo]

Intelligent Design, typically, seeks to refute many ideas brought on by science concerning
the natural world. Does Intelligent Design deny the Big Bang, or the fact that the universe
is almost 14 billion years old, or that the Earth is almost 5 billion years old?

What about Continental Shift? Evolution? Other species of humans that did exist?

If the answer to any of those is “No,” then we have Creationist elements found in Intelligent Design.

I think you misunderstand ID.
Definition of Intelligent Design

                                      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.

                  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.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Yes, I believe there was a flood. Catastrophism is now accepted by geologists. There are over 70 flood legends around the world. Ancient Chinese Characters tell the story of the flood.

Out of how many geologists accept this Catastrophism thing?
AND . . . How many of them are not motivated in anyway by Creationism?

Yes, I’m aware that there are many flood stories, but is that scientific evidence or STORIES?!
Is there something “special” about Chinese Characters that I should know about?
There’s a flood story in ancient cuneiform, what’s your point?

 

[buffalo]

Out of how many geologists accept this Catastrophism thing?
AND . . . How many of them are not motivated in anyway by Creationism?

Yes, I’m aware that there are many flood stories, but is that scientific evidence or STORIES?!
Is there something “special” about Chinese Characters that I should know about?
There’s a flood story in ancient cuneiform, what’s your point?

They are motivated by the evidence.

For 50 or so years J Harlen Bretz was trying to convince uniformatarians. He was ostracized until - Mystery of the Megaflood

This “pothole” was drilled out of solid rock by water in just a few hours.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...yAUAoGRrnWyo7EupDWmLdv53X4iiy3xOpHb6YpDMqE0Gg

This too:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[buffalo]

Out of how many geologists accept this Catastrophism thing?
AND . . . How many of them are not motivated in anyway by Creationism?

Yes, I’m aware that there are many flood stories, but is that scientific evidence or STORIES?!
Is there something “special” about Chinese Characters that I should know about?
There’s a flood story in ancient cuneiform, what’s your point?

Ancient Chinese Characters

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I think you misunderstand ID.
Definition of Intelligent Design

                                                **Is intelligent design the same as creationism?**

                                      No. The theory of intelligent design is...

                                 If it diminishes but ONE aspect of real science in favor of a more religion-friend-

ly answer, it is at least part-Creationism. The only way to prove otherwise is for
it to disagree with what Creationism says, otherwise it is party to it.

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.

That doesn’t sound like science, no sir not at all. Here’s what it more sounds like:Argument From Personal Incredulity
In this fallacy, one argues that because they do not personally find
a premise to be likely or believable, it cannot be true, regardless of
evidence. The fallacy lies in presenting one’s beliefs about a propo-
sition as evidence.
These "ID"s say that because something is so complex, THEY cannot BELIEVE
it was by itself, THEREFORE there is a DESIGNER. While I wouldn’t ENTIRELY
argue with their point, I reject it as a scientific method, theory, or whatever.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

They are motivated by the evidence.

For 50 or so years J Harlen Bretz was trying to convince uniformatarians. He was ostracized until - Mystery of the Megaflood

This “pothole” was drilled out of solid rock by water in just a few hours.

This too:

I see I will have to ask again:

Out of how many geologists accept this Catastrophism thing?
AND . . . How many of them are not motivated in anyway by Creationism?

Oh, and erosion like that in those images, whether
by water or wind, would take a VERY long time to
happen, much longer than purported by the Bible.

 

[buffalo]

If it diminishes but ONE aspect of real science in favor of a more religion-friend-
ly answer, it is at least part-Creationism. The only way to prove otherwise is for
it to disagree with what Creationism says, otherwise it is party to it.

That doesn’t sound like science, no sir not at all. Here’s what it more sounds like:Argument From Personal Incredulity
In this fallacy, one argues that because they do not personally find
a premise to be likely or believable, it cannot be true, regardless of
evidence. The fallacy lies in presenting one’s beliefs about a propo-
sition as evidence.
These "ID"s say that because something is so complex, THEY cannot BELIEVE
it was by itself, THEREFORE there is a DESIGNER. While I wouldn’t ENTIRELY
argue with their point, I reject it as a scientific method, theory, or whatever.

What is real science? I already discussed empirical science. Do you believe “real science” is properly reasoned?

There is a difference between ID, the science and ID, the philosophy. ID shows design. Who the designer is is left to philosophers and theologians. If one doesn’t like the implications of design as you seem to, that is tough.

The chance of events below the UPB can be chance, but over the UPB they rational conclusion is design. The greater the number over the UPB the more confident design is the conclusion.

Essential reading…a trillion trillion years or more

Protein folds fall well beyond the UPB.

 

[buffalo]

I see I will have to ask again:

Oh, and erosion like that in those images, whether
by water or wind, would take a VERY long time to
happen, much longer than purported by the Bible.

I do not know how many accept it, though that would be an argument from popularity. The point is there is plenty of evidence (satellite and other) that we know earth has been shaped by cataclysmic events.

Not so, the Megaflood carved these out in hours. I suggest you at least watch the religion unfriendly NOVA - Mystery of the Megaflood. For them do do it is admission of sorts.

So, if there can be one cataclysmic flood there can be two as in Noah’s.

 

[meltzerboy]

Here is how.

Evolution is not empirical science as it is trying to reconstruct past events. Empirical science is observable, testable and predictable. Evolution does not meet the test. It is therefore philosophy and some take it as religion.

Evolution “is therefore philosophy and some take it as religion”? I thought that is what Intelligent Design is. For the record, evolution can and has been observed in such creatures as squirrels and fish: this is called rapid evolution. It is predictable by means of applying the principles of natural selection and adaptation, some of which, by the way, are not random processes. The testability aspect of a good theory is mainly in the form of falsifiability (Popper), which states that a good theory should have the potential of being proven incorrect. Evidently, evolution has that potential as IDvolution is attempting to demonstrate.

 

[buffalo]

Evolution “is therefore philosophy and some take it as religion”? I thought that is what Intelligent Design is. For the record, evolution can and has been observed in such creatures as squirrels and fish: this is called rapid evolution. It is predictable by means of applying the principles of natural selection and adaptation, some of which, by the way, are not random processes. The testability aspect of a good theory is mainly in the form of falsifiability (Popper), which states that a good theory should have the potential of being proven incorrect. Evidently, evolution has that potential as IDvolution is attempting to demonstrate.

There is ID the science, and ID the philosophy.

Don’t mistake rapid evolution for adaptation (as they did in the finches).

Source for your claim it has been observed in squirrels and fish.

 

[meltzerboy]

There is ID the science, and ID the philosophy.

Don’t mistake rapid evolution for adaptation (as they did in the finches).

Source for your claim it has been observed in squirrels and fish.

The source is from University of California @ Berkeley. On the Internet, one can find it under the heading of Misconceptions about Evolution.

 

[buffalo]

The source is from University of California @ Berkeley. On the Internet, one can find it under the heading of Misconceptions about Evolution.

Give me the link to the experiment and the paper.

Or you can answer what did the fish become? Is it still a fish? How about the squirrel?

 

[meltzerboy]

Give me the link to the experiment and the paper.

Or you can answer what did the fish become? Is it still a fish? How about the squirrel?

One of the many misconceptions is that adaptation is not part of evolution. According to this article, it is. I don’t have the link to the paper available; but you can check it out on the Internet under Misconceptions about Evolution.

 

[vz71]

Again: Creationists are notorious for quote mining. That is to search for
supporting quotes from scientific articles, journals, whatever, supporting
Creationist ideas provided the mined excerpts are robbed of their mean-
ing and context.

I do not recall this in the definition you provided to narrow down what exactly a creationist is.

Could I get a revised definition of ‘creationist’ from you?

 

[buffalo]

One of the many misconceptions is that adaptation is not part of evolution. According to this article, it is. I don’t have the link to the paper available; but you can check it out on the Internet under Misconceptions about Evolution.

The issue is trying to extrapolate adaptation (aka micro-evo) to macro - evo. That is where they go into storytelling.

 

[buffalo]

I will quote mine with joy:

Eminent Evo guy and atheist Richard Lewontin
‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, *in spite* of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, *in spite* of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our *a priori* adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.

 

[vz71]

I don’t know exactly how God works, but do you?

You seem to have your mind set that God works through evolution.

So why fuss about someone else comparing how God works to artistry?

 

[Crossbones]

I think you misunderstand ID.
Definition of Intelligent Design

                                      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.

                  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.

Honestly, this is perhaps the lamest thing I’ve read in a while. It’s so complex we can’t understand it, so it must have been designed? That’s terrible. By the same logic, the sun is designed since scientists didn’t understand how it worked until the advent of quantum mechanics.

 

[vz71]

Honestly, this is perhaps the lamest thing I’ve read in a while. It’s so complex we can’t understand it, so it must have been designed? That’s terrible. By the same logic, the sun is designed since scientists didn’t understand how it worked until the advent of quantum mechanics.

Do you propose that there is no design in the sun?

How could this all be a creation of God’s without some kind of design throughout?

Is it proposed that God simply threw creation together without planning.

 

[buffalo]

Honestly, this is perhaps the lamest thing I’ve read in a while. It’s so complex we can’t understand it, so it must have been designed? That’s terrible. By the same logic, the sun is designed since scientists didn’t understand how it worked until the advent of quantum mechanics.

Do you accept the Universal Probability Bound?