Help me understand Intelligent Design

I've been pondering.Say what you will about Faith and the YECrs. Their worldview, albeit circular, is at least consistent. "We believe that this book is the absolute truth and explains the world around us."While we can argue about how well it explains what we see in the world, at least we know that the YECrs believe that the mechanisms explained in the book were used to create the world.ToErs, likewise, have a pretty solid worldview. "These observations from numberous different fields of study give us an estimate of the age of the world, and nicely explain/demonstrate the processies for the specification of animals from one or few common ancestors."The mechanisms of Evolution have been well described, tested, observed, etc.But this brings me to the Intelligent Design crowd. And, here I get puzzled.Can ID be defined other than as opposition to Evolution? What are the mechanisms of Intelligent Design? Where do we find sources for these mechanisms? How do these mechanisms explain what we see now?Forget for a moment if it's science or not. Forget if it's testable or not. I just want to know what Intelligent Design stands for? What does it presuppose? How does it explain (even within it's own set of facts) what it suggests has happened?Does anyone have these answers?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I wondered the same thing. I tend to think that it gets misrepresented on this forum more often than not. As I understand ID it simply says that there is a designer, but that ID on its own is not prepared to say how it is done, and is content to leave it up to the scientists.It seems to me that it is trying to refute neo-Darwinism, which as I understand it claims that evolution happened without a metaphysical designer. I think that the argument is not between ID and evolution but only between ID and those that attach Atheism to Darwinism. Darwinism on its own is agnostic saying only that this is how it happened, but is silent on why it happened or what caused it to happen.I also have a problem with the way the term "creationism" is used. I consider myself a creationist because I believe in a creator. If the creator used the process of evolution in the process of creation then I have no problem accepting that. I frankly don't have the background to even comment on the accuracy of the TofE but I rely on the scientists that are experts in the field to form an opinion.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Of course. ID is the identification of systems, mechanisms, features, apparatus, etc. that are observedly designed. ID is the explanation of scientific data, facts, and evidence favorable to the Supernatural worldview, whereas Darwinism, that is the belief that living originate from other livings things (macroevolution) instead of from a Deity, is the explanation of the same scientific data, facts, and evidence favorable to the Naturalism worldview.Supernaturalism worldview accepts all facts produced by Naturalism but we reject any explanation or conclusions based on those facts that contradict the objective facts of Creationism because of the admitted bias of Naturalism in their exclusion of the Divine under the false pretext of neutrality. Basically the same mechanisms identified by Evolution yet correctly attributed to a Designer, IOW, ID corrects the defects of evolutionary explanations and conclusions caused by its mandatory atheistic parameters. Much too ambiguous to comment on. ID bows to observed reality: what we see was designed. ID presupposes the exact antithesis of what Naturalism presupposes, but unlike Naturalism, our presuppositions are based on a foundation of irrefutable facts that correspond to objects in reality.Herepton

There is ID as a principle, and then there is ID as a movement. The basic principle you describe is not one that causes problems. Some people disagree of course, but the principle does not itself conflict with the theory of evolution. There are plenty of evolutionists who think that there is a designer. ID, as a principle, is entirely consistent with OEC (old earth creationism) and with theistic evolution. It does not contradict the theory of evolution.It is ID, as a movement, that raises controversies. Those in the movement claim that they can prove intelligent design, and they demand that it be part of the science curriculum. Evolutionists, and many other scientists, object to this, largely because no proof has been given, and the methods used to support ID are not scientific (the arguments are philosophical, not based on empirical evidence). Even more peculiar, the ID movement is being supported by YECs (young earth creationists) who have traditionally been opposed to theistic evolution.Thus ID looks more like a political movement than anything else, apparently a movement intended to get the teaching of religious views into the public schools. You are technically right. There are many creationists (OECs for example) who have no argument with TofE. But there is a small group of YECs who take an extremely literalist reading of genesis, and who are militantly opposed to evolution. The term "creationist" tends to be applied mainly to YECs.

Would it be too much to ask for actual physical examples? Ones that show all the processes of design?See
EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
for a discussion of those processes. In other words, adding a designer does nothing to improve the understanding of the science? This totally contradicts your previous statement quoted above. It cannot be the same mechanism and the antithesis of that mechanism.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

ID is a coalition of various creationists. The leaders seem to be mostly OECs with some YECs (e.g. Paul Nelson).They try not to talk about it too much (except when speaking in front of religious groups) because if ID were identified as religion it would never be allowed in to science classes in U.S. schools.Also since the entire point of ID is to paper over the cracks between the positions they find it hard to actually get behind any positive proposals (i.e. anything that implies an old earth would be unacceptable to YECs - so it can't be supported).So mostly it's attempts to criticise evolution. And they really haven't done too well at that either. Behe seems to be the only one even trying to do serious work and he isn't getting anywhere.n

you may be interested in: {Is ID properly pursued?}
http://EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued?Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

How so? It seems that the vast majority proponents of ID are Christians, followers of a religion that we all know to be false. I haven't heard any IDer give the proper glory and respect to Odin the Allfather, so I don't see how ID can be base on "a foundation of irrefutable facts".

---

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Dr J, I mean just wait for another generation. It is superlatively clear to me that I can not do my work in this generation. Given 911 it will only be more of this same kind of 40yrs of my life time and some other non-Christian group will realize the maths, besides it was arabs who got a lot of western civ up to Pascalian math inducation gambling on its past, not future. If you seperate "foundation" and "irrefutable" then in fact I would disagree with you. There is no reason to disagree as most evcers seem indeed to realize. I happen to think that creationism might even change its focus on (against) evolution if terrorism causes the status quo to change rather than what little legally creationists themselves can create. They are just too small a population base. Other religions are not. It only takes to show them how the form of the Gospel as a vehicle was analogically replacing the Kantian organon in the sources of Creationism in America. They will figure the rest out if we dont first.You say you know (it) to be false but if you had to worry about anthrax in your email you might find a change of hear acoming if they and other religious nations end up chaning our view of disease in the process of eradicating terroism. There is no design for the effect ofs terrorism. It is only destruction. Non-design will never get you there.

Bat sonar.IC systems.Migratory birds. How does the Cuckoo fly thousands of miles to its parents (whom it has NEVER seen or met) and find them ? This is rhetorical. Blatant examples like these is why physical objects reflect an invisible Designer. YOUR explanations are meaningless and are insulting to common sense and observed reality. I say explanations as an insult which infers you must skip evidence because you have none to support your explanations. The examples given fit perfectly in any ID model and defy any Evolutionary model. Negative.Restoring the Designer explains reality and its origins. All that is left is to unlock and discover the seemingly inexhaustable depths of the Designers complex mind and abilities.Science is the discovery and unpacking of creation via various learned and academic methodologies. The IDer doesn't give a fuck about what anyone theorizes or says as long as ultimate credit is assigned to Him as the source.Have you ever been plargiarized, or stolen from, or had a patent or copyright infringement ?ToE has plagiarized the source of creation and assigned it to an incorporeal entity (chance) as explained by them its Prophets and Priests. IOW, you guys have set up yourselves as God and are paying the traditional price of plagiarism: expulsion. The IDer has expelled you - thats the reason why you deny His reality.Your last item has comingled two thoughts so I won't address it.I wouldn't mind discussing your link but you need to narrow what in the link we are going to talk about. IOW, its just too broad.HereptonThis message has been edited by Herepton, 09-25-2005 06:58 PM

Why does "Irreducibly complex" systems need to be 'designed'?Why is bat sonar an example of 'design'. How it developed is understood by evolutionary processes that do not require a 'designer'.what algorthem would you use to seperate a 'designed' system from a natural system that formed from random variation with a filter of natural selection?Also, what system has been shown to be 'irreducibly complex'. All the systems that were proposed to be IC by behe were shown to be reducible.

A metaphysical designer would have a hard time with the physical.

But the mechanisms of evolution are natural selection and random mutation.Surely ID can not be saying that natural selection doesn't occur. Obviously it does. They can't be saying that mutation doesn't occur. Obviously it does.So, I can only assume that they are taking out the "random" element and that evolution happens through a process of deliberate mutation?What are the mechanisms of these deliberate mutations? What causes them? How do we determine what is a deliberate mutation versus what is a non-deliberate mutation? Are all mutations done with the purpose of change in the species?These sort of questions are fundamental to the theory. I don't see how a theory can be supported without these kind of answers.Like I said in the OP. Ask Faith about YEC, she HAS answers. You're hard pressed to find a question she can't answer from within the confines of YEC philosophy. (You may not agree with the answers, but they have them).Likewise, ToE.I just don't see ID being able to answer the same kinds of questions. That leaves me with a sinking suspicion that it's not a real "Theory" of how things happened. It's simply a "I don't like your theory" kind of a thing where the proponents want to teach the negative, but don't have a possitive to teach.

You give this as an example of the mechanism But that's a result, not a mechanism. By mechanism I specifically mean the method by which the result is reached.Let's assume that Bat Sonar is, in fact, something which spontaneously arrose via the will of a designer and did not evolve.What was the mechanism by which it arrose? How can we determine if the same mechanism is in use in say dolphin echo location? Why dod some bats have sonar and others don't? Did all bats get sonar at the same time they got flight, or before, or after?If ID describes the world, it needs to be able to at least partially answer those kinds of questions.That's my whole point of this thread. What does ID use for answers that differentiates itself from YECs or ToE?