Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.

I'm curious as to why you are dismissive of the concept of the creator creating the first atom along with the conditions for that for that atom to evolve. That would most certainly require an intelligent designer and would be consistent with my understanding of what ID is when stripped of its politics. This of course would not preclude the possiblity of the designer connecting with the creation metaphysically.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

If that was what ID was about, ID wouldn't be attacking evolution all the time. ID is primarily anti-evolution. Behe, Wells, Johnson and Dembski all attack evolution more than anything else.

It does seem that people like Behe have changed their stripes a bit. I have also seen some presentations from lesser known IDers that specifically don't challenge evolution as much as they are simply trying to prove that something was designed. These are not necessarily contrary to genetic algorithms as implementation of that design. It seems as though the non-Bible-thumping IDers have retreated to an argument purely based on design to "combat" the idea of what they percieve to be a purposeless process.This isn't to say that the strict anti-evolution folk don't exist. Obviously they do and it can be seen in places like Kanasas and Dover where they are pitting evolution against ID as if one must preclude the other. Here it is crystal clear that when they SAY ID they MEAN special creation.Note the excerpt from Pandas saying that all animals are created fully formed.Ooops I mean, that all animals are designed fully formed.They are obviously pitting ID against common decent which makes no sense when the focus of ID is the (D)esign. It is like when you play hide and seek with a 2 year old. They think that you can't see them under the bed even though their feet are sticking out. They want to be able to talk about creationism in a secular venue yet still use all their old creationist arguments.This is also not even beginning to mention that all of those arguments are demonstrably bogus. Even if they could get their foot in the door to be called science it would be a science with no support, no theories, and no evidence.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Behe may have changed his stripes but he still proposes a degree of divine intervention in the history of life - he has simply moved from being (probably) a straight Biblical OEC to allowing that that intervention might be limited to the early stages of that history. His irreducible complexity argument was always an anti-evolution argument with no relevance to cosmological ID.

It is my understanding though that he nor any other IDers like him ever really proposed how the designer actually implemented the design. Even if they didn't always act like it, it seems as though evolution was always compatable with their ideas. When they say ID is contrary to evolution in this cirumstance they MEAN naturalistic evolution. Most of their battle in trying to get ID recognised as a science is in the definition of science. Behe among others readily admitted that under oath. Their biggest complaint is the restriction of science to methodological naturalism even though they admit a less stringent definition would include quack ideas such as astrology.That is way different though than other IDers. Pandas goes directly against evolution as a concept. Like it has been mentioned before, the first edit of Pandas after creationism failed was effectivly a simple substitution of the word 'create' with the word 'design'. I am more worried about these kind of IDers than those like Behe. It also seems that the kind of people who post here are more aligned with this type of IDer too. The creationist behind the curtain.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

As I remember it, Behe suggested that the DNA for irreducibly complex systems was inserted at an early point and left dormant until it could be useful. I'm not sure how seriously he meant it because he doesn't seem to have put much work into promoting it and it has a pretty obviosu problem.Anyway Behe's argument insists that IC systems must be produced all at once, and it seems that he does require direct intervention by the designer to do that, one way or another. So maybe he has moved from Designer-as-creator (except, I suspect, for the first life) to Designer-as-genetic-engineer.But if that is all there is then why stay involved in the ID movement. The main focus is to get anti-evolution arguments into schools, without even doing the science necessary to get those established. GDR is completely wrong to talk about taking the politics out of ID because the poltiics IS the main part of ID, and always has been.

Nothing can threaten science. It is simply logically impossible. However - science education is under threat. That leads to the scientific dominance of America being under threat. Scientists are passionate about science and education - they have generally spent a lot of time in education about science - so when the education system is threatened, they speak out. It is entirely rational. It is probably trivial to say that something is philosophical. It is nothing to do with atheism, however. It is about rational thought and the rejection of dogma. As above - the aversion is to the politicization of ID, of its undermining scientific education. Naturally, that is founded no the philosophy that discovery and knowledge seeking is fundamentally important - and that a good science education is vital to this.Interestingly, the vast majority of evolutionary biologists simply ignore ID, yet a great majority (if not all) ID and creation scientists have a highly vocal opposition to evolution. Do you apply the insidious mind theory to them equally? Actually, there is a growing sentiment that dogmatic belief should be equally challenged. Whether it be dogmatic nationalism or dogmatic belief in the FSM. When belief shapes the way you you view the world, it leads to policies born of dogma - and policies born of dogma are often harmful. Much better to make policies based on reasoning based on all the evidence. That's a whole topic in its own right. In keeping with standards of substantiation here: homology cherry pick. In that example IDists insist that '3/4 of the [essential] flagellum proteins are “unique”, i.e. do not share homologies with other proteins.' It is actually 5%. The evidence is out there, but they relied on each other's works as evidence and ignoted the massive bulk of evidence which clearly showed the contrary (and is easily accessible). The principle that we shouldn't invoke unknown and unnecessary entities to explain something? We can see this simply with three propositions.P1: The universe self exists.
P2: The universe was created by God. God self exists.
P3: The universe was created by God. God was created by the Invisible Pink Uniform. The Invisible Pink Unicorn self exists.Which one do you propose is more parsimonious? Nobody is stopping anybody from making whatever inferrences they choose. If it is going to be a scientific inferrence, it needs to follow a certain formula. An important part of that formula is falsifiable. If theists/IDists can propose a falsifiable entity existing that was behind it all, then things might be a little more amicable for them in science. However, theists insist that God is unfalsifiable and IDists refuse to discuss the Designer. Then you sorely misunderstand. The secular argument is. There may be a God, or djinn, or domovoi. We should be highly skeptical of claims of intentional acts that precede known entities that can demonstrate intent. Demand actual evidence of this entities existence before entertaining that this entity might be behind phenomenon x. I'm saying that you should be very careful, as a scientist, to avoid the biases that are the result of being human. Inferring someone smarter than you is behind some difficult puzzle you are working, is perfectly natural. However, we have solid evidence to demonstrate that such an inferrence frequently turns out to be an illusion. It looked real at the time, but looking back it is nought but a shadow.Thus, with this experience remember: Don't let your own feelings about how it was done, cloud your investigations. Carry on forwards! Try to falsify your own beliefs! The spirit of discovery is bold, but it is frightening. We should warn students of some of the perils on the journey. That insolvable problems only appear as such is my entire point. Because there may be no satisfying natural explanation for something does not lead to the conclusion that it must have a supernatural explanation. Unfortunately, the investigation methods are dramatically different. I know 'all that ID' is saying. But let's not forget the biggest message they are pushing:- That evolution cannot account for it. Indeed - that is essentially all they are saying. Science is not a democracy. You are free to say what you like - but you are not free from criticism for what you say. It is an imperfect meritocracy.Efforts to get lies/falsehoods/erroneous conclusions into the class rooms will not be tolerated. No more than holocaust denial will be if they try and get it taught.

---

I cut a lot of this out because the server is struggling at the moment. Most of it is ID apologetics and not addressing the historical reality of the design inferrence; how it has shown to be wrong time and time again. You have retreated the Designer to his supernatural root. The last of the gaps - why is there something rather than nothing...why is there a reality?I'm not attacking that inferrence here. That is a matter, as you say, that may never be solved. If ID focussed on that question it would either be a branch of cosmology and be doing complicated relativity and quantum physics or it would be philosophy.Let us remember, then, that modern ID concentrates on biology. We should warn students that trying to explain biological life is difficult, but they should not settle on a design inferrence. It might be that positive evidence emergences for a designer, supernatural or otherwise. However, the reasoning 'There is no way I can see how this could have happened without intelligent intervention...therefore it was by intelligent intervention.' should be utterly rejected.

It's a fair point, and it might be true. However, if 99% of his peers were fundy loons, I'd be surprised if he wasn't also (there was a 99% chance he was...)

Yup, that's it... Satisfied? I actually see most ID'ists as trying to disassociate themselves from creation science, not because they are trying covertly bring in the Bible, but because they are embarrassed by some of them over the perception of outright bias. I would be surprised if they hardly conferred over anything at all. Want to know what won the Scopes Trial in the end? It was the appearance of suppression by a biased community-- namely, Christians. Now, 70-80 years later the roles have reversed. No one is saying that opponents of ID shouldn't oppose it, least of all, me. But there is a difference between opposition and total distortion in an attempt to slander your opponents views. And judging by the response I've seen here on this thread alone makes me think that they've done a bang-up job at swooning people over with such disinformation since its becoming increasingly apparent that there is a fundamental misunderstanding. They both believe in a Creator, that's why. Here's the key difference: One group wants to codify a particular science by marrying those principles with its theology. The other group wants nothing to do with that except recognize that life certainly appears to have been designed. One wants to push theology, the other does not.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Just a minor point - Scopes actually lost that trial.

Come on NJ, we all know that the only reason the ID movement avoids talking about god as the intelligent designer is to dodge a high court decision that made creation science unfit for teaching at science classes That statement makes no sense. string theory isn`t a branch of science???? The fuss is about people trying to include crap like ID in the science curriculum Actually, Tyson meant that it should be taught in science as a pitfall, an istance of behaviour to be avoided.

quote:

---

I actually see most ID'ists as trying to disassociate themselves from creation science, not because they are trying covertly bring in the Bible, but because they are embarrassed by some of them over the perception of outright bias.

---

Of course this is an evasion because I have been talking about creationism - and made it plain that mainstream ID is an OEC view, while "Creation Science" was explicitly YEC.OECs would not support Creation Science because they disagree with the Young Earth view. And of course Creation Science failed badly in the courts. And that is when ID came in, and [B]Of Pandas and People
Want to know what won the Scopes Trial in the end? It was the appearance of suppression by a biased community-- namely, Christians. [/quote]I would say that it was the fact that the posiiton taken was manifestly absurd and directly contrary to the U.S. Constitution. To forbid the teaching of mainstream science in science classes simply because it is contrary to certain religious views is simply not on in the U.S.So if ID feels "oppressed" because it can't get its views into schools the answer is that they have to do the science. That is what got evolution in. That was what the "Wedge" document said that they were going to do. So why aren't they doing it ?

quote:

---

Now, 70-80 years later the roles have reversed. No one is saying that opponents of ID shouldn't oppose it, least of all, me. But there is a difference between opposition and total distortion in an attempt to slander your opponents views

---

Yes there is a difference. What you are seeing is opposition. The ID movement speaks out of both sides of its mouth on the religion issue. It is not distortion to point out that ID supporters - including you - are quite happy to imply that the "Designer" of ID is God - or certainly a God. Or to refer to the constant statements that ID is against naturalism - and therfore clearly arguing FOR the supernatural.

quote:

---

And judging by the response I've seen here on this thread alone makes me think that they've done a bang-up job at swooning people over with such disinformation since its becoming increasingly apparent that there is a fundamental misunderstanding.

---

And what "disinformation" would that be ? The only disinformation I can see is the ID party line that you're parroting.

quote:

---

They both believe in a Creator, that's why.

---

They both beleive in Creationism, that's why the definitions are the same. You should have taken the time to find out the facts before guessing at a - wrong - answer. Found hereThat IS creationism

quote:

---

Here's the key difference: One group wants to codify a particular science by marrying those principles with its theology. The other group wants nothing to do with that except recognize that life certainly appears to have been designed. One wants to push theology, the other does not.

---

No, the key diifference is that one group took an all-or-nothing approach, while the other will settle for less. Both want to sabotage the science curriculum in schools by changing it to fit with their religious views rather than the mainstream science that should be taught.
The reason they want to each that "life appears to be designed" is because they don't want people knowing that science is not coming up with real evidence of design (and in fact has come up with evidence against the idea that life was designed).

Designed by what? How? Surely these should be the first questions on the mind an ID "scientist"? Such ridiculously obvious questions are never raised, however.Why are IDists so coy about attempting to identify their designer?Perhaps it's because they've already made up their minds. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This is true because everything in the known universe is material-- hence, everything we observe is considered "natural." And what is also true is that we don't know what kind of conditions existed from the beginning. Its only counterintuitive, from an existential view, that something-- anything-- can come from absolute nothingness. But that is only the opening segment of ID. What ID bases its value on doesn't stop at any singular argument. I wouldn't argue with you that improbability, alone, does not present a solid case for an intelligent design hypothesis. Improbability must be coupled with specific patterning in order to discredit chance. What I mean by this could be followed with an example. Suppose that NosyNed shoots down to the DMV to register his brand new vehicle. Now, lets say this in California where they use 3 letters of the alphabet, followed by 4 possible numbers. The odds that he could get any number of combinations is the same. But suppose that Ned didn't opt to personalize his license plate. They give him his plates and he goes to his vehicle to affix them. He notices that the license plate reads, NED 8953. Ned is quite shocked at the incredible odds that this happened to be the tags he received, since his name is Ned and he was born on August 9, 1953. The odds that he would have gotten that specific pattern is incredibly improbable, but not impossible. Stranger things have happened.But now suppose that he buys his son (we'll pretend that his name is Ben) a new car for his birthday. Ned takes the new vehicle and gets it registered. The plates this time reads, BEN 2481. Whoa! Ben's birthday is February 4, 1981. The odds are now staggering.He then goes to register his wife's vehicle, then his daughter's, etc. Now, if they all had license plates that reflected some personal meaning without anyone personalizing them, wouldn't you think that someone at the DMV is playing around with them? Wouldn't it take a cognizant mind in order to come up with that specific patterning? Obviously. So, it isn't merely improbability, but rather, the coupling of improbability with patterning. For a more in-depth understanding of the principle, you can read it from Dembski's own mouth if so desire. Nobody came to such a conclusion on a whim. Everyone in history has noted such phenomenon and have always attributed to either God or gods. Why? Because even they understood that we all can see this pattern emerging out of life. Its not unreasonable to expect that it was intended, just as its not unreasonable to assume it isn't. Its not neutral, however tacit it might be or however cleverly its packaged and repackaged. What can kill you (A), is getting hit by a car (B). Getting hit by a car (B) can kill you (A). A can follow B just as easily as B can follow A in this instance. They object to it because it implies God. That's overwhelmingly the case. And if someone can say that they reject ID because it tries to smuggle in God, then I could just as easily indict them by saying that they want to snuff out God, and getting rid of ID is an excellent way of doing so. In that way, we can go tit for tat until we're dizzy with circular reasoning. Perhaps its you that belies its source as masked creationism. You are making it out of bounds to even mention design, or creation, or God, or anything that might even loosely be described as theological. That's not cool at all. That's messed up. I mean, even if something can be proven to have been non-random, that still wouldn't prove God. Nothing can "prove" God, except God. Nothing. So, again, what's the problem? I don't know any ID'ists that take a position on the age of the earth. That's what creationists quibble about. (See Reasons to Believe :vs: AnswersinGenesis for details). As for them being opposed to evolution, its on the merits of scientific inquiry, not whether or not it appears designed or not. That's always been a non-issue. If a Designer exists, He/She/It/They could have designed in whatever way He/She/It/They saw fit. Why is that? And who are the champions of ID?

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

So you say that it is a distortion to say that ID is about God.But you also say that ID implies God.ID'ers won't allow the arguement that the vertebrate eye so poorly "designed" that we should question whether they were really designed at all - because the Designer is God.Apparently you even want to bring theology and God into science (after arguing that theology shouldn't be allowed in science).ID certainly includes creationists - even YECs like Paul Nelson. And you admit that they don't discuss the age of the Earth - which is rather odd if they actually want to offer an alternative to evolution. Don't you think that the difference between a few thousand years and over a billion is significant in working out the history of life ? In identifying what can be attributed to unintelligent natural forces and what must be the result of intelligence ? And it's not as if there were any scientific controversy over the idea that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.So apparently it seems that the "distortion" is no distortion at all. ID is all about religion. It is meant to be the basis of an argument for the existence of God. The Designer is assumed to be God. ID at the least panders to the unscientific religious belief in a Young Earth and puts that ahead of doing real science.So why are you accusing detractors of engagining in distortion. It's simple - you are using slander to try to suppress criticism. Maybe - IMHO probably - you aren't inventing this yourself, instead parrotting the PR of the ID movement without even thinking about the contradictions. So stop repeating ID PR without thinking. Start to deal with the evidence - including the evidence in your own words.