Help me understand Intelligent Design

Yes. The argument against Irreducable Complex systems is that they are not irreducable. Time and again people have listed what they feel are ICS, but time and again it's been pointed out that there are lesser viable systems. I don't know what this stands for

So Far As I Can Tell

If by "imaginings" you mean mountains of data, independantly gathered from non-related sources, then yes.But, I think we've drifted off topic.The whole point of this thread is this:Can a supporter of Intelligent Design please describe to me the steps of their theory? Can you give me a possitive definition of Intelligent Design, one independant from trying to disprove ToE?Assume ToE was never expressed, and the world has come to the conclusion that ID is how things came to be. What would be taught in biology class about the mechanics of the process? How did the designer design? Why did the designer make the decisions that were made? How were those decisions inacted? etc.If ID is to be taken seriously, you must have at least some of these answers.

ID isn't a theory.If ID was all biology had, then it would not be mentioned. Biology would be classification, anatomy, physiology.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLI think it was Gould who made the quip that(THE) tower was not made to strech the paint at it's tip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-30-2005 02:12 PM

Hi guys, I'm kinda new here and this could be a stupid question, but what exactly is the difference between and an IDer and a CREATIONIST (YEC/OEC)? I always thought they were the same thing.I hope this isn't going off topic, if it is then I apologize in advance.

YECs and OECs would normally believe that there was/is an intelligent designer. So would theistic evolutionists. ID is fairly broad, in that it does not claim to identify who/what is the intelligent designer. However, ID does not give any backing to specifically YEC claims of biblical literalism, and attempts to be seen as not based on religious thinking.At present YECs appear to be supporting the ID movement. Many theistic evolutionists are opposed to the movement, although they agree with the claim that there is an intelligent designer. It's not clear how this will shake out in the long runThere isn't even any necessary contradiction between ID and the theory of evolution, in that evolution could be the means used by an intelligent designer.What is distinctive about ID, is the claim that intelligent design can be scientifically proved. The objection from the science community is that there is no actual science there.My own opinion (probably shared by most scientists): Allow ID to attempt to develop as a science (we could not prevent that anyway). If it is successful, it will eventually earn respect within the science community, and will earn a place in the science classroom. That's the correct way to get into the curriculum. Trying to shoe-horn it in with politics is bad policy.I personally doubt that ID will ever be successful science. But that's a different matter. I'm willing to let them show me as long as they use science, not politics.

Hello flipflop,Welcome to EvC. The more the merrier, they say.nwr was rather polite towards ID, I'll be more blunt.About your question: it isn't stupid at all. The only stupid questions are those that you don't ask for being too shy.And your question isn't off-topic either, I'd say, since the topic is "Help me understand Intelligent Design". One way of understanding it is to realise that ID is a ploy of creationism to wedge itself into science class. Creationists reason that if they don't mention God explicitly, and vehemently proclaim that Intelligent Design is science, they will reach their goal, which ultimately is to restore their God in his rightful place as the creator of the universe, throwing a large portion of establised science out the window in the process. Their foremost smoke screen is the Discovery Institute, which has not discovered anything to date and would be more aptly called the Disguise Institute.You thought right: ID is creationism.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

wow..viva la tolerance

You can read all about the wedge strategy here. Is that Spench or Franish?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

a bit of both, puisque je parle ces deux langues courament

Thanks for the welcome, and the answers.A few more questions if I may...1) If ID and evolution aren't necessarily contradicting each other, then why all these debates and conflict about who's right and what should be thaught and what not?
2) As I understand it, ID proponents simply want it to be thaught in school so that students are exposed to a different alternative to evolution, I don't see anything wrong with that.
3) Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the theory of evolution NOT been proven/tested yet?
4) Regarding ID, who exactly is the creator you are referring to? Is it the christian god? or are you just saying that there is a creator but don't know who it is yet?You guys will have to excuse my lack of knowledge regarding these topics, I don't live in north america and we don't really pay much attention to these things over here, I have only recently started to take interest in the EvC controversy so I hope you guys don't mind me asking all these little questions.Thanks.

ID and evolution are contradicting each other on a number of crucial points, hence the debates etc. The problem is that they want it to be taught in science class, where it doesn't belong because it isn't science. If they teach it in religious studies, history of science, world views, etc, that would be no problem. Nothing in science can be proven to be 100% correct, but the theory of evolution has such an enormous amount of evidence in favour of it, from very different fields of science, that to deny that it is most probably true is tantamount to calling water poison. I'll leave this one to the ID-ers themselves. Of course not, asking questions is how science progresses.Where do you live?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

1) Cosmological ID doesn't necessarily contradict evolution. However despite some public backpedalling the mainstream of ID was founded on the notion that we could scientifically prove that God had intervened in the decelopment of life. ID is based on denying evolution and most ID work consists of attacks on evolution.2) Even if ID were a scientiifc alternative to evolution it would not be appropriate to teach it in science classes until it had progressed to the point of being a serious challenger in scientific circles. Since ID proponents are not willing to do the work needed to make that happen ID can't even be considered a fringe scientific view.3) The theory of evoution has been heavily tested.4) Do you mean the public pronouncements of ID or the real beliefs of ID supporters ? In private the majority of the ID leadership appears to consist of Christian Old-Earth creationists. And at least on Christian Young Earth creationist. The affiliation of supporters of ID is harder to work out but it would be surprising if they were not mainly Christians and Creationists - whether Old Earth or Young Earth creationists is harder to tell - ID has certainly tried to recruit YECs but has been denounced by YEC organisations for not taking an explicit YEC line.

What are some of these crucial points? Oh, I see, but I thought ID is science, isn't that why they wanted it to be taught? Even you're own president supports it. But if there is such overwhelming evidence for it, howcome ID scientists don't support it? They are, still scientists afterall.Also, why the controversy if evolution is, infact, a sound theory? Ok, I'll wait for them to reply till I comment on ID. Thanks, I live in Taiwan