Analyzing Intelligent Design {a structural construction of ID theory}

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 ScienceFirst off we have the presentation of what intelligent design is. I quote verbatim from the website. Let us break this down into bite size pieces and thereby be clear as to what this theory is about. 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

holmes I must disagree.In the case of an alien intelligence we can determine intelligence in a similar way to our own which is the operation of a brain according to physical laws that produce thought via electrical properties of organic matter.How that matter is put together is irrelevant since it is still constituted of matter within the universe.That kind of intelligence could be defended somewhat though there are many hurdles to even that.A god is another matter altogether.How can what we term intelligence exist in that which is incorporeal? When an intelligence whose presence cannot even be defined operationally then how can any validity be assigned to the presence of intelligence necessary for the design aspect put forth by ID proponenets? This is in my view the single greatest impediment to the whole structure of their assumption.
Then we also need contest the means by which this god implements design in a physical world.What evidence is there for this molding of matter into these designs?How is that intelligence forging the matter on a continuous basis necessary to explain ongoing phenomena as evolutionary theory models do without being apparent to out investigations?
No.I maintain that without definition of this intelligence we allow pretty much anything to be substituted and thus gain no useful further insight into the world.After all this intelligence substitues for natural selection whose properties are documented and demonstratable.ID er's need be at the least as rigourous in their pursuit.This message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2005-05-09 02:55 PM

mick I do not disagree that these examples were intelligently designed however we can show the existence of the designers and being human are endowed by what we define as intelligence. I am not per se precluding it,I am asking where the source of the intelligence that does the design comes from since it seems to me that it is necessary for a designer to be of a greater complexity than that which it designs.This in itself opens the question of the greater complexity that designed our intelligent designer etc... If they can do so then the process whereby natural phenomena are set in motion need be shown as well as why such a process does not reveal itself.It still remains for the intelligence itself to be defined else all of the rest is moot.

Removed incomplete postThis message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2005-05-10 12:15 AM

Removed incomplete postThis message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2005-05-09 11:48 PM

Jerry Don Bauer Let's see. According to the website. And last but probably least Would you care to do more than make a claim as to nothing being true in the entire thread? Maybe instead of putting forth a tirade of anger you would care to explain what is untrue and correct us as to the "true" nature of Intelligent Design that you are implying.Are you an ID theorist? Good! Then we can have you establish the actual theory of Intelligent Design and set the record straight rather than leave us with the impression of hiding behind a percieved slight against yourself to avoid having to explain your position on this.I patiently await your explanation of this Theory and what it actually is Jerry.Please proceed.

Jerry Don BauerPlease Jerry, I would much rather have the whole theoretical construct laid out here in a concise and rigorous form so that it may be properly debated and have its structure investigated. There are many sources of explanation of what does or does not constitute ID and I would like to have the chance to properly see what the arguements are.What makes you an expert on this subject? How does the website I referred to in my OP differ from your explanation of ID?I am wishing to remain open but I will take you to task on any points that I feel warrant criticism and I will require that you define sufficiently the meaning of the term Intelligent design.I appreciate that you have put forth effort in other columns however I feel that it is necessary to give a cohesive framework to this since it appears that you have disagreement with the website and its directors concerning the nature of ID.

holmes Ok so let us establish this here and now.We can have them show the mathematical/statistical model and all the other things contained within their theory that thereby explain the observations of the world as we see it.Since they claim to have established that certain biological entities cannot have been produced by undirected mechanisms they must now show how the world we observe derives from those equations.As I had in the opening post this quote from the website It was my intent to go paragraph by paragraph into the website and see if the claims made herein stand up to analysis. I agree that they have structured the arguement so that they need not explain the designer.This is one of the points I am trying to tackle.I am bringing the debate from the sanctuary of the courtroom language into the harsh scepticism of the scientific arena.I am sorry if I seemed to have manipulated your post for my ends but in order to bring the shell game being played into the light of day I am going to have public declaration on this forum to allow them to make their case and then see if we cannot broaden the horizon of the ID movement to see if they can explain all of the observations that we make of the world.As we have seen in Jerry DonBauer's posts the need to establish a definition of the tenets of Intelligent Design must be met.From there we apply pressure of the withering sort normally reserved for fields of science and see if anything comes of it.In this way it is not a process of battering of egos{though that may occur} but an establishment of ground rules and a recording of the structure of just what constitutes ID and what does not.I hope as I mentioned in my OP to record the points in a seperate part of my computer after we have gotten consensus on this framework and then see what explanatory power if any that it does have.If,as you say, they do not wish to play the game for real then I will establish that.The need is more for them to show that they are indeed onto something and less on us to establish that they are charlatans.Thanks for the honest criticisms holmes it really helps me to focus this topic and help me keep track of what I am trying to accomplish and not get lost while doing so.Time will tell if they want tot play the game for real.I must go now as I have appointments to keep.Later

---

And since you know you cannot see yourself,
so well as by reflection, I, your glass,
will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of

Jerry Don BauerHello again Jerry. If you would be so kind as to establish here the theory of Intelligent Design then I will use your version to continue the debate rather than the website in the OP.Perhaps you could start with defining what intelligence means in this application and how does this intelligence operate?

Jerry Don Bauer Since we have established that there is no theory of Intelligent Design as there is a theory of eveolution could we perhaps impose upon you to explain what the nature of intelligence in the term Intelligent Design entails?Thank you.This message has been edited by sidelined, Wed, 2005-05-11 11:54 AMThis message has been edited by sidelined, Wed, 2005-05-11 11:56 AM

Jerry Don Bauer I am sorry I did not make this clear.What is the structure by which this intelligence operates? Human intelligence is dependant upon a brain as structure in which electrical and chenmical process allow the thought processes by which intelligence manifests itself.I would like to understand the equivalent nature of the strucre by which intelligence operates in Intelligent Design.

Jerry Don Bauer Well since nobody does understand QM I doubt that will be the case.However if you wish to make your case we will give that a try.
What in quantum mechanics gives a structure by which an intelligence can operate in an analogous way to the electrochemical process within the human brain that give rise to intelligence?I will try to spend as much time as I can over the rest of the week and weekend however I do have a few pressing isues at home and work that may take me away for a bit so be patient.