Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What does ID theory say?
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 1 of 67 (486260)
10-17-2008 7:27 PM


Something I'd really like to get to the bottom of, and I'm hoping that some of the ID community will help here is - what do ID theories actually say? I mean what are the details of who, when, and how? What is the explanation of fossils? Is there a reason why humans are very similar to chimps? What was the unit that was designed - family, genus, species, roughly speaking?
I realise there may be a number of different versions of ID out there.
I'm not looking for evidence for and against these ideas, just a clear statement of them.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 10-18-2008 6:51 AM Richard Townsend has not replied
 Message 4 by gluadys, posted 10-18-2008 11:22 AM Richard Townsend has not replied
 Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 6:59 PM Richard Townsend has not replied
 Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 7:13 PM Richard Townsend has not replied
 Message 30 by Syamsu, posted 11-14-2008 10:21 AM Richard Townsend has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 67 (486287)
10-18-2008 6:35 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 67 (486289)
10-18-2008 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard Townsend
10-17-2008 7:27 PM


There is no ID theory. ID leaves all the questions you ask completely open (as a matter of policy).
THe nearest thing I know of is Behe's idea that God works by "genetic engineering" - making changes to genes that he believes evolution cannot do. Although his only arguments are against evolution, not for any alternative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Richard Townsend, posted 10-17-2008 7:27 PM Richard Townsend has not replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 4 of 67 (486311)
10-18-2008 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard Townsend
10-17-2008 7:27 PM


Richard Townsend writes:
Something I'd really like to get to the bottom of, and I'm hoping that some of the ID community will help here is - what do ID theories actually say? I mean what are the details of who, when, and how? What is the explanation of fossils? Is there a reason why humans are very similar to chimps? What was the unit that was designed - family, genus, species, roughly speaking?
I realise there may be a number of different versions of ID out there.
I'm not looking for evidence for and against these ideas, just a clear statement of them.
As I understand it (from an outsider's POV) ID does not deal with any of these questions. Rather the ID hypothesis is that we can identify in nature design that cannot be attributed to natural processes such as evolution. The only explanation for such design is a designer.
ID does not deny that evolution (and other natural processes) produce design. It does not claim, for example, that each and every snowflake is individually designed, but recognizes the natural properties of water molecules that generate the hexagonal pattern of snowflakes. It recognizes that much "design" in biology can be attributed to the process of evolution.
But IDists claim evolution is insufficient as a cause for all biological design.
So the ID "case" really depends on whether one can really identify design in nature that is beyond the capacity of natural process to produce. That is what lies behind Dembski's "design filter" and the notion of "specified complexity".
To date, the ID project of identifying design that must be attributed to a designer rather than to natural process has been a signal failure.
Furthermore, ID is not only a scientific failure. From the perspective of many Christians, it also promotes a very questionable theology. Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful deity be incapable of making a world that cannot do what it is intended to do without additional tinkering?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Richard Townsend, posted 10-17-2008 7:27 PM Richard Townsend has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 5 of 67 (486318)
10-18-2008 11:52 AM


Design theory
From the Wedge Strategy of the Discovery Institute:
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. ...
Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
From this it looks like that ID theory is designed to push a particular fundamentalist view of religion and defeat "scientific materialism" -- their code words for pretty much everything that has been developed in western culture since The Enlightenment.
And to do this they pretend ID is science when its goals are completely religious in nature.
No wonder they call it the Dishonesty Institute.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 7:48 PM Coyote has replied

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 6 of 67 (486377)
10-19-2008 3:23 PM


Thanks guys - what about folks who would call themselves supporters of ID? I'd like to hear from you.

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 7 of 67 (488540)
11-12-2008 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard Townsend
10-17-2008 7:27 PM


Something I'd really like to get to the bottom of, and I'm hoping that some of the ID community will help here is - what do ID theories actually say?
Paleyan Watchmaker thesis says design, organized complexity and contrivance (= adaptation) corresponds directly to the work invisible Watchmaker (= Genesis Creator) even though the Bible is not mentioned in Rev. Paley's famous work (1802).
Current DI IDism says reality and nature reflect the work of Intelligence.
What is the explanation of fossils?
Presuppositions determine interpretation. But the predominant fact concerning paleontology is stasis: species appear suddenly, endure unchanged, disappear abruptly leaving no descendants (= special creation supported).
Is there a reason why humans are very similar to chimps?
Question presupposes evolution. IDists see no similarity.
Similarity is not falsifiable; it does support evolution. But Darwin refused to theorize about transmutation absent a causal mechanism because otherwise similiarity is just an illusion produced by Mastermind.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : add last three words.
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : add "Rev."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Richard Townsend, posted 10-17-2008 7:27 PM Richard Townsend has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 8 of 67 (488541)
11-12-2008 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard Townsend
10-17-2008 7:27 PM


What was the unit that was designed - family, genus, species, roughly speaking?
Good question.
The designed unit is each species----the same are immutable based mainly on changelessness (stasis) established by paleontology and the appearance of design and organized complexity seen in every aspect of nature (= Divine or supernatural agency operating in reality).
Evolution is impossible since it postulates unguided material causation (UMC) operating in reality. There is no evidence of UMC. Materialism is notorious for not producing any evidence in support of its main claim: the Emperor is naked.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Richard Townsend, posted 10-17-2008 7:27 PM Richard Townsend has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 9 of 67 (488543)
11-12-2008 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
10-18-2008 11:52 AM


Re: Design theory
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. ...
Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
All true.
We only seek to rescue science from the bad element: Darwinism, Materialism, Atheism.
From this it looks like that ID theory is designed to push a particular fundamentalist view....
Most IDists are not Fundamentalists; Jonathan Wells, William Dembski and Michael Behe, for example. The comment above says ID will be slandered as Fundamentalism.
Fundamentalists, by and large, are mostly YECs who accept microevolution, like all Atheists.
And to do this they pretend ID is science when its goals are completely religious in nature.
False.
ID makes scientific CLAIMS. ID says Mind or Intelligence is seen in nature. Like I said this is a scientific claim. IF ID is a religious claim and not a scientific claim then evolution and Materialism are anti-religious claims, if we view the situation objectively.
Evolution and Materialism is not science or scientific. Darwinism, like Creationism-ID, attempts to explain the same database of scientific evidence. In other words science is neutral. But whatever paradigm best explains the evidence lays claim to science. Creationism-ID best explains the evidence; therefore the same is science and Darwinism is scientism or pseudoscience.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 10-18-2008 11:52 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2008 8:13 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 11-12-2008 9:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 29 by Meddle, posted 11-13-2008 8:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 45 by bluescat48, posted 11-14-2008 8:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 10 of 67 (488545)
11-12-2008 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object
11-12-2008 7:48 PM


Re: Design theory
Ray, give it up.
You're not convincing anyone with your creationism-masquerading-as-science act.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 7:48 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 8:55 PM Coyote has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 11 of 67 (488548)
11-12-2008 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coyote
11-12-2008 8:13 PM


Re: Design theory
Ray, give it up.
You're not convincing anyone with your creationism-masquerading-as-science act.
According to a wide spectrum of polling data, half of all adults in the U.S. are antievolutionists; therefore it is evolutionists who have failed to convince the majority that their "science" is science.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2008 8:13 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2008 9:08 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 18 by bluescat48, posted 11-12-2008 10:24 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 12 of 67 (488550)
11-12-2008 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object
11-12-2008 8:55 PM


Re: Design theory
According to a wide spectrum of polling data, half of all adults in the U.S. are antievolutionists; therefore it is evolutionists who have failed to convince the majority that their "science" is science.
If you want to play with statistics, half of all adults in the US are below the median in intelligence.
None of these statistics means anything.
Science is not subject to a vote of the masses. Science relies on evidence.
Religious belief relies only on faith, which loosely translated means, "Trust me!"
ID is no better. Science might have a little more interest if ID ever, just once, came up with something that was not strictly in line with biblical belief. But it can't! ID is religion with the serial numbers filed off in hopes of fooling the school boards and courts, so that creationism can once again be taught in place of science.
What a joke!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 8:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 9:30 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 13 of 67 (488553)
11-12-2008 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coyote
11-12-2008 9:08 PM


Re: Design theory
If you want to play with statistics, half of all adults in the US are below the median in intelligence.
All this says is: agree with me or you aint intelligent. Half of all adults in the U.S. equates to tens of millions of persons. Evolutionists have no explanation as to why so many modern and educated persons reject their "science" so they invent reasons to comfort themselves.
I see no insult in being insulted this way by persons who believe in human evolution. In fact, the rejection of these kind is a relief.
None of these statistics means anything.
Then why did you assert some stats above?
Science is not subject to a vote of the masses. Science relies on evidence.
I agree in principle.
Religious belief relies only on faith, which loosely translated means, "Trust me!"
Religious persons disagree.
ID is no better. Science might have a little more interest if ID ever, just once, came up with something that was not strictly in line with biblical belief. But it can't! ID is religion with the serial numbers filed off in hopes of fooling the school boards and courts, so that creationism can once again be taught in place of science.
Since we already know Atheists believe this, what is the point?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2008 9:08 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by subbie, posted 11-12-2008 9:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 14 of 67 (488554)
11-12-2008 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Cold Foreign Object
11-12-2008 9:30 PM


Re: Design theory
quote:
Since we already know Atheists believe this, what is the point?
Since we already know that you don't know the definition of "atheist," "science," "logic," or "evidence," what is the point in your continuing to post here?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 9:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 10:01 PM subbie has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 15 of 67 (488556)
11-12-2008 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object
11-12-2008 7:48 PM


Re: Design theory
Ray
ID makes scientific CLAIMS. ID says Mind or Intelligence is seen in nature.
That's not a claim of ID. ID's claim is that ID is responsible for mind/intelligence.
ID can make any claim it likes to readily observable facts, that doesn't render it science, what it can't do is provide evidence that ID is responsible for those readily observable facts. That's why it isn't science.
Evolution and Materialism is not science or scientific.
Hypocrisy. Evolution "claims" that mind/intelligence evolved. Isn't that just as "scientific" a claim as ID is making, & therefore is science?
Creationism-ID best explains the evidence; therefore the same is science and Darwinism is scientism or pseudoscience.
You're not even ashamed, are you?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 7:48 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 10:18 PM mark24 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024