I wish to go into the basics of the intelligent design movement and their stated objectives as relates to the concerns they express on the scientific objectivity as well as the
evidence they claim to be available for review.I have selected this site for the purposes of this discussion.
Intelligent Design Network – Seeking Objectivity in Origins Science
First off we have the presentation of what intelligent design
is. I quote verbatim from the website.
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
ID is controversial because of the
implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion
Let us break this down into bite size pieces and thereby be
clear as to what this theory is about.
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
So the theory is making the proposal that the patterns we se are the result of an intelligence.So is it not reasonable to expect that the nature of the intelligence be defined?
I must here also point out a subtle misunderstanding in that it is not wholly true that natural selection is undirected.It has no set purpose but physical rules do apply to the progression of evolution through natural selection.Even randomness within the structure of matter that applies to evolution are bound by rules which are termed probability.
This is where I wish to begin and I would like to limit the discussion by proponents of both sides to the defining of the intelligence that this theory is implying.After approximately 20 posts I should like to take the next setion of the opening definition of ID until we can clarify the issues herein.
I am certain that this is going to cycle through the 300 post mark many times over the next year but I would like to have this very clearly addressed and I am going to maintain a running folder on my computer as we specify points that are obscure and bring some rigorous lucidity to ID and the claims made by its proponents.
I hope I need not point out the obvious place for this topic.Thank you.
This message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2005-05-09 08:53 AM
™ Version 4.2