The Framework of and Implementing the Biological Design

With the exception of Michael Behe, I find various avocations of intelligent design (in biology) to be so vaguely defined as to be useless. This includes the Discover Institute (“Intelligent Design division”) refusing to take a stand on the age of the Earth. Their thoughts are that intelligent design works in either a young or old Earth time frame.There is no method indicated, for implementing the design - It would seem to be that “intelligent design” = “a compilation of miracles.” Or, in other words, “intelligent design” is just a code word for “creation”. Of course, this is precisely what the evolution side has always thought. Behe, on the other hand, accepts a 4.5 billion year old Earth, the bulk of evolutionary history (including the common decent of humans), and mainstream evolutionary theory. but seems to think that God did some guiding/tweaking here and there. Even then, it seems that “intelligent design” = “insert miracle into theory of evolution.”So, the question to the intelligent design proponent: What is the framework of and implementation method of ID? Designing something is pretty useless if you can’t build it.Moose{Submitted for the Intelligent Design forum. Admins, please do not “go easy” on this PNT. Improvement suggestions welcome.}-----Addendum to original message:A lot of young Earth creationists latch onto/support the intelligent design concept, in a “so vaguely defined to be useless” manner. For them “intelligent design” = “creationism”.The fact of a ~4.5 billion year old Earth has much evidence support. A far older than YEC framework Earth has even more massive evidence support, even without any radiometric dating considerations. THE EARTH IS VERY OLD.Biological evolution is a fact - The nature of life populations on the Earth has massively changed down through time. This fact is independent of any validity of any theory of biological evolution. BIOLOGICAL EVOLTION IS A FACT. There, however, is a very strong theory of biological evolution.Any intelligent design model that denies either or both of the above facts is massively detached from reality. Any young Earth / no MACRO-evolution model is non-reality creationism.The only possible rational intelligent design model is one that fits into the old Earth / biological evolution framework. That is what Michael Behe is trying to do.Now I would say it is possible that God influenced biological evolutionary pathways. God may have designed and engineered little tweaks into the way things happened, although if God micro-managed biological evolution God sure made it appear like there was a lot of “free running” happening. Besides, why can’t an organism that included Godly design also be able to further independently evolve?The challenge for intelligent design proponents is to find God’s fingerprints on evolutions pathways. It would seem to do such would require that some feature couldn’t have evolved (or been humanly engineered). Now, how do you prove a such a negative?Once again, the question to the intelligent design proponent: What is the framework of and implementation method of ID? Designing something is pretty useless if you can’t build it.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Add link Conservapedia Michael Behe article.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Addendum above.

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

​

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

I was about to promote this but then you asked for suggestions.The only concern I have is that what you expect the answer to look like isn't clear. Given who you are asking the question of I think you'll have to spell it out.What does a "framework" look like? Can you give clear examples?What is an "implementation method" as well?I think I know exactly what you mean but then I am not the audience am I?

Added to message 1.Moose

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

My intent is only the consideration of biological design, not any broader consideration such as cosmological design.I propose that as best presented, by Michael Behe, intelligent design is at dubious best a part of the old Earth theory of (biological) evolution (ToE).I think this is a substantial argument against any young Earth creationist who tries to latch onto intelligent design.Comments?Moose

In its seemingly most common usage here at EvC, "intelligent design" simply refers to the "obvious" evidence around us that we are part of a theistic creation. The idea that ID is somehow divorced from religion is laughable, and it seems that most would agree (see "Expelled", Berreta, AoK, etc, etc) That sharp edged Wedge seems to have become awfully hammer-like.