Lack of Defining Features of Intelligent Design

My view of intelligent design is that intelligence is an intrinsic aspect of reality, perhaps primary to matter and energy. Shelldrake has suggested that the laws of nature are entrenched habits. The universe is a democracy in the process of designing itself, intelligently and purposefully. The laws governing inanimate matter are so entrenched that deviation can not be detected by present measuring methods (except perhaps at the quantum level). However, living systems are still very much a design in process and can be observed responding intelligently and purposefully. Even the ability of living systems to respond is limited, but individual organisms can sometimes be observed overruling instincts and genetic determination. Adaptations originate in the living system, not in genomes, and are inherited epigenetically as they develop. They only become encoded into the genome if persistent over many generations. Responses to temperature, altitude, and new food sources are explored by the organism, and can be changed immediately if ineffective, without the finality of “natural selection”. Used organs develop and unused ones atrophy. Means are explored to heal wounds, regenerate tissues, and fight infection.Such a view might be compatible with materialism, since the intelligence involved is a natural force. However I am dismayed by the tactics used by materialists to prohibit any investigation of intelligence. If intelligence of any form is involved, life is intelligently designed, and I have no objection to religious people believing their god plays a role in the process.http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

Intelligent design permits, but does not demand, belief in a personal god. Belief that intent exists and plays a role in nature is all that is required. All living systems have some (albeit limited) ability to initiate intelligent, purposeful responses. That living organisms participate in the design their own evolution during growth and development is in contrast to the materialist belief that:All organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.If any of these are religious concepts then materialism must be acknowledged as a religion.http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

---

No webpage found at provided URL: Qeustions about Materialism

What is the evidence that ID permits, but does not require a belief in theism? Me. I an a religious agnostic who does not believe in a personal god. Yet I do not believe evolution is the result of "natural selection" acting upon a series of genetic accidents. You may not acknowledge evidence that rational intent exists as an aspect of nature, but other people observe organisms and internal organs responding intelligently and purposefully and regard those observations as evidence of the reality of purposeful intent. Usually I'm content to leave science to the scientists. However so long as materialists denounce anyone questioning materialism as "an ignorant creationist", I'll feel obligated to protest.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: Qeustions about Materialism

Jazzns

quote:

---

For starters, define purposeful intent, define a metric on how we can measure purposeful intent, and explain how to apply that metric to an internal organ so that all of us skeptics can see very clearly the evidence that organs express purposeful intent as compared to some other unintelligent object such as a rock.

---

Most people know what purposeful intent means, and the fact that you seem to know it doesn’t apply to a rock causes me to suspect you also have some comprehension of its meaning. I presume you are going to argue that an inability to define intelligence to your satisfaction would constitute evidence it plays no role in living systems. I define intelligence as the ability to make fallible, subjective judgments. No intelligence would be required to make automatic, deterministic, thermostat-type decisions. Subjective judgments include the option of being wrong, but they also offer the opportunity to respond creatively in emergencies. Intelligent decisions can only be measured or predicted statistically. They are immaterial and don’t take up space. I’m confident of my own freewill, but I also know it can’t be measured. The judgment as to whether living organisms resemble mindless, mechanical collections of matter or whether they respond and interact intelligently is such a subjective judgment. There will always be materialists who see living organisms as complex, mechanical zombies that can only change accidentally (accidents, which are then supposedly turned into coherent systems by “natural selection). If the belief that life is intelligently organized is a religious belief, so is the belief that no intelligence is involved in living processes. Neither can be proved to everyone’s satisfaction.http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http:30145.myauthorsite.com/

quote:

---

So you are basically admitting that the conclusions of intelligent design are completely and utterly subjectively derived. How is that supposed to be compelling?

---

Bertvan: All conclusions are subjectively derived. That is the definition of a conclusion. Some conclusions compel more people than other conclusions do, but I am skeptical of the existence absolute truths. The conclusion that “natural selection” might somehow turn a series of genetic accidents into rationally interacting biological systems apparently doesn’t compel a number of people. Perhaps RM&NS skeptics have not yet achieved a majority, and perhaps you believe intimidation and ridicule can prevent more RM&NS skepticism. Personally I believe such tactics are counterproductive. I certainly find it difficult to ignore strident intolerance by proponents of an idea when trying to form my own conclusions. As someone who does not believe in a personal god, my confidence is diminished in anyone who claims all doubts about RM&NS are religiously motivated. Belief in the reality of purposeful creativity and free will as aspects of living systems does not require belief in a personal god.http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

Quetzal

quote:

---

Okay, I won't even ask you to define "rational intent". However, for this assertion to be even worth considering, I would ask you to provide one single actual example from nature where we see "organisms and organs responding intelligently and purposefully". If you can, then we can consider your example in context. At the moment, all we have is your assertion that such things take place.

---

While science knows that an organism develops from a single fertilized cell into a complex organism, science cannot duplicate the process. The details are mostly a mystery. “The genome does it” is no more explanatory than “God does it”. I see the genome as a record of past adaptations, not the origin of new ones. All individual living systems have some limited ability to respond and adapt, intelligently and purposefully, during growth and development. Organs develop through use and atrophy through disuse. Biological systems employ some creativity to fight disease and heal wounds. Some are even able to grow new body parts. Individual living organisms achieve limited adjustment to temperature changes and changes in altitude. They learn to utilize novel food sources.Some limited ability to purposefully override instincts and develop new behaviors is a characteristic of living systems. Adaptations are inherited, epigenetically, as they develop and only become incorporated into the genome if persistent over generations. In other words, Biological systems gradually redesign themselves as they encounter new environments, utilizing a natural ability to make limited choices, an ability that has not been detected in non-living systems. “Natural selection” plays no creative role in the process.Now, I am indifferent as to whether or not you find evidence for this view compelling. I would not try to exclude you from science because you find genetic accidents and “natural selection” believable. People favoring either concept can be perfectly competent biologists. Tolerance for differing views is all Ben Stein is trying to promote.http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://30145.myauthorsite.com/