Intelligent Design or unthinking blasphemy?

Hi all, not sure if this has been posted before so apologies if it has, I've looked, but can't see it.Every time I look at the phrase "Intelligent Design", it makes me laugh.
The reason being that this idea, is held, mainly by apparently devout (arguably fundamentalist) Christians.
The reason I find this funny, is that the definition of "Intelligent Design" and the definition of "God" are totally incompatible.
True some of the words in there are difficult to pin meanings onto, but even a rough approximation should be enough to demonstrate....Intelligence- Hard to define, there's so many different facets to Intelligence, but it's not too important for this point, so I'll define it as "the ability to create and manipulate abstractions"
If anyone's got a particular problem with this definition, feel free to add or remove what you like, it's not material to this point, tho I believe the definitions ok.Here's where the problems start-
Design- To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent:
To formulate a plan for; devise:
then...
God- Again difficulty in a concise definition, but there's some things all Creationists believe, He's omniscient,omnipotent and eternal, those are the important ones.Now design, essentially, is when we replace the actual trial and error process with an abstract version of same. Suggesting God did this means He can err.
That's blasphemy isn't it?And of course although we don't have a definition for intelligence, we do know some of it's properties.It requires learning, and most importantly, it requires change. Whatever else intelligence may be one of the few things we can say about it for definite is that it changes.
Which is also blasphemy. God is eternal, and (usually) atemporal.So can anyone see a way out of this dilemma?For the miscellaneous section (I think)Edited by Shh, : edited for forum destinationEdited by Shh, : edited for structure

Hi
I've reformatted the post, a bit, hope this is better. I hadn't really committed to the format, I'm still getting used to some of the functions.The reason I didn't put this down for intelligent design, is that I believe the language to be political. This is the basis for how I would respond to the "infinite intelligence" arguments.If there's anything else let me know, thanks for the feedback.

Hi Modulous,
Trial and error is at the heart of design, it's just not apparent immeadiately, because instead of doing the trying and erring themselves designers let scientists do it then work with the results.The aim of design is to illiminate actual error by using the tests and results of past trials to reduce the number of trials neccesary, but design would be impossible without such testing, can you imagine trying to design the shuttle without having all the theories involved actually tested first?Even finished designs are rarely actually finished, there's always room for improvement, which may not even be due to error, but simply seeing a "better" way to do things.
The universe, show's no signs of this process, nor does life.

Exactly, it's the exact same process as science but if anything, it's more rigourous, because of the danger.
It doesn't allow for the "supernatural", and were the supernatural a factor it would fail miserably, look at how easily a relatively simple, and efficient designed system, say an internal combustion engine, can be upset.
Imagine the quantum implications of miracles, in this light.True human beings can fix gunked up engines, but this, again, suggests God would have to be careful about how to interact with reality. This is a far cry from omnipotent.Edited by Shh, : edited subtitle

Lo again,
Modulous, you said.. And I agree completely, the question is, how is this design?You continued... And I reply again, then why the need to design?
God is perfect, design involves using known facts to create objects/processes which fulfill a need.
The suggestion is that Creation somehow solves something, because it is from a perfect source it is assumed to be a "perfect" design (contradiction in terms imo), but the fact there is a need constitutes ,non-omnipotence doesn't it? And certainly not atemporal, or else the universe would have always been needed. See above But it isn't design. if it is design then what is it's purpose? Design is difficult to infer in natural things becausse they lack purpose.
On the other hand, if God "designed" the universe, there should be signs, that our existence and circumstances are central to the universe. No such evidence exists, we are a momentary flicker in existence.
Even in inferior design, once purpose is established, design can be judged easily. This is difficult to do with humans, as our exact purpose, is only ever explained in vague esoteric terms.
The universe, however, is extremely easy to ascribe purpose to. In Biblical terms the purpose of Creation is to house humanity. Is it a good design? Or is there a vast amount of pointless effort?
How does it square up with "perfect design"? From a Theistic position, I guess, God's way is always the best way. But "always the best way" isn't a characteristic of design, design is "learn from the mistakes of others, as well as your own". To apply this to God is blasphemy, to change the meaning of "design" to make God somehow more acceptable to someone is also blasphemy.
Also to suggest that this way was "the best way" is to limit God again, He's perfect, and omnipotent, there are an infinte amount of "ways" He could do "it", so this one shows bad design purely on the basis of unneeded effort and complexity.
A flat Earth, with a small sun orbiting it, and some kind of layer over the top to keep stuff in, would have been far better "design".

Hi, sorry there's been a bit of activity on this, so gonna just try catch up here. Then a bear who sits on a tree stump has "designed" a seat? Implementation(verb)
Design descirbes an action, and not just an action, like religion, or philosophy, or science, it describes a discipline.
You're suggesting God has to do things in one way, because that's the best way they can be done. This isn't an omnipotent God you're describing it's superman squared. How would a different, simpler universe, provide a definitive answer?
You, or anyone can believe in God any way you like, it's none of my business, but the Christian God isn't involved in a farce, He doesn't decieve, and He doesn't need to design, because He can create perfection without effort, or using the machinery present in the substances He created Absolutely, 100%, that's why we have the word "design" which describes a certain process, and the word "evolution" which is a different process.
You suggest that their are other forms of design than human, and I'd be interested in knowing where you got this idea?
"Design" as I use it, is a process that was first studied in ancient Greece, tho' it may have been earlier. So why do you think Genesis doesn't say, "And God said "let there be light", then sat down for a bit to work out what the parameters light would exist under would be"?
Because He didn't do it. Sorry but where did you address the design question? I thought you weren't willing to attempt it?
According to the Bible, Man is the toop of the food chain, in every way. Everything in Nature is subordinate to us, but this isn't apparent in the "design". I make no such assumption, God frequently says so.
And by the way, these "reasons" you speak of, how do they occur within an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal,atemporal and above all complete being?
They can't. Our language, nor our intelect is capable of understanding God. This is why the word "Creation" is used.Can any human truly Create something? no. Can any human truly design something? yes of course. I'd like to see these other methods, Evolution isn't design, any more than floating bits of wood are boats. No I realise that your appy to add your own meanings to either A)the Christian Gods actions, and His revelation (fine by me, but blasphemy anyway), or B) Alter the meanings of words until they fit into the use you want for them (Creation Science anyone?), which by the way, is taking His name in vain, as sins go it's a biggy. Sorry but this is blasphemous too, you're suggesting we could avoid God's plan for us.

This is more along the lines of what I was getting at, with the notable point, that in design, as much of the trial and error as is possible, is done in abstract terms.
Beaver's do not design dams, or they'd have hydroelectric plants by now. Which is, in fact, the only method known, because it's the one we made.

That's fine if you want to look at design that way, but it's not scientific design, in scientific design we put things in where they are most efficient, this is largely dictated by where they must be. This doesn''t apply to God.
Yoou're use of design is pretty much, "anything made by an agent that can make it", or "anything which shows pattern", and sure you can define it like that, but, considering ID claims to be a scientific movement, what would be the purpose in switching from "Creation" to "Design"?
It's to add a technical veneer, not to say "God had designs on the people of Israel".
Well, technically, in a scientific way, it's not design. Remember, the point of this was that design could be shown in nature, which wouldn't work with your definition of design.
And as a Christian, it's claiming to know God's motivations, and to say that He is material, and subject to the same laws as us.

Lo I think Ringo pretty much answered this but... Maybe not, but it still suggests a Deist theology, and that could be blasphemous, remember God can move in and out of Creation at will, and does so, and this "design" implies that the basic "stuff" has properties which God must work around.In all honesty I don't think it's blasphemous to use words like design, etc. if you're trying to get your head around the concept of God, and it's probably not to use them in prayer, or in Church.
But to go to a scientific setting, or a court, and say "I know, This is how God did it!!" is blasphemy, it's arrogant, and it's an attempt to use God, to make your preferences dominant.Screaming "Jesus F***ing H. Christ!!!" after hitting your thumb with a hammer, isn't polite, but it's not a sin.
"Saying God did it how I say, it's Science" Is two arguments from authority, both outright wrong, and both intended to further the ambitions of those making the claims.
This is the essence of taking His name in vain imo.
It also says that the Bible wasn't good enough. Wether it was acccurate and inerrant, or a general poetic vision of morality, Christians believe it to be God's inspired divine word, to add or remove from it, is the same sin of arrogance, and manipulation as above.(imo)It's also pretty hard to adapt the word intelligent to be a fitting description of God, simply because it suggests the possibility of the opposite.
"Intelligent Design" (political) is a far cry from "Divine Design", "Perfect Design"(religous) or any other kind of "non-human design" anyone cares to posit.

Yes, and it's terms, because of this are, specific, and precise. You are now arguing that a vague general word, which you define as meaning "stuff that's thought up" be allowed in. Should scientists even be considering this? Do you think that people realise that ID means "God has to exist 'cos nothing happens without someone forcing it to"?? I was under the impression that ID was talking exactly about the type of design I mentioned, which has at least some scientific validity, and could therefore possibly be dealt with by science.
There were posts as I typed this will respond more later. Show one such example please, remembering that even tho you said evolution was a form of design you then said that design requires an idea to be concieved.
Infinite intelligence is more political language, find one example of intelligence as an attribute of God in the Bible, and explain what definition of "intelligence" your're working with please. He can't, so why try to hem Him in by saying He can be found in material objects?? I don't claim that God can be found in the "design" of the universe (pattern, or how it works?). In fact I don't claim anything along those lines, What I claim is that if you believe in the Bible, you will follow it's requirements.
One of the major beliefs, of the Bible, is that any revelation, beyond it's pages, and anyone giving such is to be considered "Anathema". Is ID such a revelation?
If Id want's to be considered science, then using "design" in such an interpretable manner, is foolish it's neither tentative nor finite. If they mean pattern fine, say so, if they mean design, ok say so. Or is a "theory" just something we think now?Again this all returns to the motivation.
God supplied us with the inforrmation which was to be used in His worship. He told us that any other information caliming to be such was lying. ID theorises a way to prove Gods existence, when even the claim this can be done is a sin.It's fine for you to say "this is what I think happened...", but to set up a movement to get this set in stone, and named "science" is to challenge God Himself, since He tells us we can't know.There's only two methods, for Christians to reach God, Christ and the Bible. Christian theology has followed this route always. these are the ways which were given us by God, anything which goes outside these is unChristian, and sinful. All Christian apologetic is based on these two sources, for this exact reason.Again religion is a discipline, you can't be a Buddhist and a millionaire, you can't be a Satanist and a Jew, You can't be a Christian and validate ID.
You can however call yourself whatever you like, and try convince others. The ID camp has done this twice, they claim Id is science (I can't tell wether you agree or not), and they have claimed that science is Christianity.
They can argue the point all they want, but Christians are not expected to validate other religions, which ID does by it's very ambiguousness. So Christians are affirming the possibility their God does not exist, and others may, to gain the use of a tool, which God never approved of. They are also back-handedly admitting that Christs sacrifice and the Bible are unconvincing proofs.
This is a clear case of using God to further ones own ends. It's like the Golden Calf, but this time the false idol is science.And I'd still like to know why you think design in the case of ID means pattern? Frankly, there's no such thing as an intelligent pattern, a pattern simply is or isn't, to claim the universe shows intelligent pattern is even more meaningless than ID imo.
Political language, designed to change the original meaning, and with no other intent.Edited by Shh, : last line added.

Lo again,
Modulous, you said It is however, blasphemous to add to the Revelations which God has provided, ID attempts to do this. Such revelations, and those who give them are named "Anathema" in the Bible.It is also blasphemous to insist that science must agree with the Bible. This would mean science can qualify what the Bible says. Which would mean that science can disqualify what the Bible says.
God clearly states the only path to Him is through Grace, Jesus, and The Bible. He doesn't say it's factually accurate, or provable, He says it's the rulebook for a discipline. Science gets to judge scientific matters, but it can have no say in the requirements of the Christian discipline, so if it contradicts what the Bible says, that makes no difference. Nor does it matter when it confims what the Bible said.
So people arguing that ID is a valid theory, and acceptable to Christians, are raising their own golden calf.P.S. can't find the "anathema" reference atm, I'll edit it in later tho.

Lo again... It'd also have to be included in the Bible and what Jesus said. Otherwise it'd be a new revelation, that God operated in this or that way, which means the Bible's wrong, and Jesus and God were lying. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as blasphemy. No new Gospels allowed, period. It grants science authority over God, and your interpretation of what God meant precedence over what God actually meant. "Science says evolution of man took millions of years. The Bible says one day. Because I interpret it literally science must agree that it took one day, because science is always right even when it disagrees with God (me)." which contains lots of blasphemy, or the way which allows both to coexist "Scientifically man took millions of years to evolve, in the way God meant man was created in one day.". Unless it's not up to you to decide what's consistent.
Christianity reserves this right for God. Christians must judge their own actions, not others, to say someone else's belief is inconsistent with God presupposes a perfect understanding of God. What is more likely, is that we have impefect understanding both of the universe and God, and that the apparent discrepancies aren't truly so. None of which affects our ability to live as the Bible and Jesus said we should, so why is there such furor? Politics. Taking His name in vain. ID can say what it wants, Christians are defined by their obligation to their God, and must restrict what they say.

Hi, you've pretty much got what I'm saying I think, it is the Christian God tho, because it's His rules as to what is and isn't blasphemy, that say it is. Especially with the use of the term "design" to describe what God does in a scientific way.Edited by Shh, : edit for clarity

Lo again
Here's the quote on anathema... This is generally taken to mean any further revelation on the nature of God, but it is revelation from any source, be it the Bible's authors, or even Angels.
This, in fact is what renders the Book of Mormon false in the eyes of most Christian sects.Anyway, starting a new job tomorrow, so may not be back 'til wednesday, talk to you then

Lo all, not had access for awhile, will post as soon as i can read up to the last posts. Sorry for the absence to anyone I should've replied to by now.

---

Catch22, Joseph Heller, 1961