Does belief in a God by definition = belief in Intelligent Design?

[Jainarayan]

This is something that occurred to me recently. I believe in evolution, and I believe in (a) God. I've pretty much always believed, despite my affinity for Hinduism and the Hindu deities and stories, that God created the universe(s), set down physical and karmic laws, and stepped back to "let nature take its course" following the rules, to whatever end. That includes the evolution of life. After all, it does follow certain patterns. Consider that all vertebrates have a tetrapod body plan (even snakes, which had limbs at one time) and use the same plan... a pattern set out somewhere sometime. On the other hand, somewhat conflicting with that laissez-faire approach, it might be argued that God still has a hand in it. That evolution of life and the universe is on-going creation. I myself am not sure which I go with.

That said, whether one believes the universe is 13.7 billion years old coming into existence from a singularity, or 6,000 years old, or it was created by Brahma who was born of a lotus that sprang from Vishnu's navel, or whatever creation story or theory one likes, does belief in (a) God creating the world/universe by default accept intelligent design?

I'm curious to see other perspectives, not debate or argue, but to see if anyone has thought this also.

 

[Iti oj]

No...yes? Does it matter? Just because you believe does not mean you have to reect science.

 

[Jainarayan]

Nope, doesn't matter. It's just a thought experiment. The reason being that, in my experience, reading, conversation and travels, I've encountered only one instance where there is a merger of God, the Big Bang and evolution, one I never would have expected:

In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.[1] Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation ...

Catholic Church and evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholic Church and evolution - Pope Benedict XVI and today

In fact it was Fr. Georges LeMaitre who was one of the first to propose something akin to the Big Bang theory.

So, this is just something I wonder if anyone has ever given thought to... that using the laws of science "God did it".

 

[illykitty]

I've always believed in the deity (although in teens rejected that thought and called myself an atheist) but NEVER believed in creationism and such.

I do believe that things happened as science finds out and that the deity set things into motion. Science finds how things tick, what the deity made...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is something that occurred to me recently. I believe in evolution, and I believe in (a) God. I've pretty much always believed, despite my affinity for Hinduism and the Hindu deities and stories, that God created the universe(s), set down physical and karmic laws, and stepped back to "let nature take its course" following the rules, to whatever end. That includes the evolution of life. After all, it does follow certain patterns. Consider that all vertebrates have a tetrapod body plan (even snakes, which had limbs at one time) and use the same plan... a pattern set out somewhere sometime. On the other hand, somewhat conflicting with that laissez-faire approach, it might be argued that God still has a hand in it. That evolution of life and the universe is on-going creation. I myself am not sure which I go with.

That said, whether one believes the universe is 13.7 billion years old coming into existence from a singularity, or 6,000 years old, or it was created by Brahma who was born of a lotus that sprang from Vishnu's navel, or whatever creation story or theory one likes, does belief in (a) God creating the world/universe by default accept intelligent design?

I'm curious to see other perspectives, not debate or argue, but to see if anyone has thought this also.

I would say no. While you could use a broad definition of "intelligent design" to simply mean "designed by intelligence", as far as I am concerned "intelligent design" doesn't refer to a broad spectrum of belief but to a very specific group who use theistic doctrine (mostly Abrahamic) to oppose the science/education of the theory of evolution, and/or a form of pseduo-science concerned with the notion of demonstrating a God's (again, usually Abrahamic) existence.

In other words, an ID advocate is not just anyone who believes the Universe was designed intelligently, but who specifically disbelieves evolution (in favour of creation) and/or believes that theistic creation is a scientifically viable theory. So while you may believe the Universe was designed intelligently, it doesn't mean you believe in "intelligent design" as a movement. It's really more about clarification of terminology than simple labeling, really. But whenever I (or many others) bring up "intelligent design" we are specifically referring to the movement described above that mostly refers to itself as intelligent design/creationism.

 

[LuisDantas]

does belief in (a) God creating the world/universe by default accept intelligent design?

I don't think so. Intelligent design is an odd little idea, regardless of whether believes in YHWH, Jesus, Brahma, Xango or whoever.

 

[Jainarayan]

It's true that it can be confusing because of the creationists' use of the term intelligent design as a thinly veiled attempt to "science up" their beliefs. ID as I see it could be part of any theistic philosophy or practice.

 

[Jainarayan]

I think this is a good way to separate intelligent design, or design by intelligence from "creationism"...

Intelligent Design: Intelligent Design refers to the structures in Nature, such as that of DNA, which can be observed and the complexity of which required an intelligent Designer. In this context "structure" means something arranged in a definite pattern of organization. In Deism, Intelligent Design has absolutely nothing to do with the unreasonable Biblical myth of creation.

Deism Defined, Welcome to Deism, Deist Glossary and Frequently Asked Questions

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't think most people understand intelligent design any more than they understand evolution. For many people - and I suspect most creationists - it's as simple as "god created the world." There is little to no thought beyond that about details or how this may or may not reconcile with other beliefs they hold.

 

[LuisDantas]

So Deism believes that DNA was meant to be and designed purposefully?

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't think most people understand intelligent design any more than they understand evolution. For many people - and I suspect most creationists - it's as simple as "god created the world." There is little to no thought beyond that about details or how this may or may not reconcile with other beliefs they hold.

Agreed.

So Deism believes that DNA was meant to be and designed purposefully?

Not necessarily. There are subsets of deism. One is the watchmaker analogy... create it, set it running, step away. This blurb was describing one way of looking at God's involvement in creation, more like engineering a system. Definitely not the biblical creationist version. DNA itself was probably not created, but the original physical laws laid down at the time of creation (the Big Bang?) allowed for DNA to arise. That's how I look at it. I categorically reject Michael Behe's assertions (irreducible complexity and all that drivel).

 

[secret2]

Wouldn't it = Belief in Dumb ******* *** Design?

 

[George-ananda]

I guess the answer to the OP question is 'No' as there are people that believe in God but not intelligent design.

I still haven't seen a definition of 'Intelligent Design' that everyone follows in their discussion of the subject. My opinion is that from the ultimate perspective all is Brahman's design (I would call that intelligent design). From a perspective closer to our own, I believe demigods/higher intelligences/nature spirits/whatever-term fostered the development of more complexity on earth.

 

[Jainarayan]

I guess the answer to the OP question is 'No' as there are people that believe in God but not intelligent design.

Thanks, I think you are right. Those who believe in God but do not believe in a patterned, logical design to the universe are the creationists.

My opinion is that from the ultimate perspective all is Brahman's design (I would call that intelligent design). From a perspective closer to our own, I believe demigods/higher intelligences/nature spirits/whatever-term fostered the development of more complexity on earth.

I believe this. Therein lies my concept of intelligent design, or maybe deliberate design.

 

[fantome profane]

You have to give them credit, the re-branding of creationism as "Intelligent Design" was a brilliant promotional move.

But no, belief in "God" does not automatically mean that you must embrace the pseudo-scientific nonsense that is promoted under the banner of "Intelligent Design". You can believe in "God", and believe that "God" created the universe with intention and purpose and you don't need to reject the fundamental basis of modern biological science.

 

[metis]

Anyone who believes in "intelligent design" would quickly abandon that concept if they ever had met a blind date I once had.

 

[Jainarayan]

You can believe in "God", and believe that "God" created the universe with intention and purpose and you don't need to reject the fundamental basis of modern biological science.

Which is what I think ID should really mean.

Anyone who believes in "intelligent design" would quickly abandon that concept if they ever had met a blind date I once had.

I wonder about it every morning when I walk into the office.

 

[George-ananda]

As I said earlier I think the term 'Intelligent Design' does not mean the same thing to everyone.

The ones that seem to have 'coined' this term is that foundation (or whatever) that so many here seem to despise.

I can't seem to clear up the details of what this group is totally saying (and I have looked into it some on the internet).

Some questions to anyone out there who knows and would be kind enough to help me out.

Do they believe man evolved from the animal to the ape to the human stage? (I think they generally do)

Was there some 'poof' moment when some irreducibly complex feature came into existence? And was it then incorporated into a new version of a species?

Or are they just saying purely natural evolution can never explain some things? And there must have been intelligence involved? (I think this might be it) And they are not saying what this involvement looked like?

Is the main reason they are so often disliked is because of their assertion 'that natural evolution can never fully explain things'. Or is it also because they are trying to get this alternate theory taught in schools?

Or is it because the majority of scientists think the opinion that 'natural evolution can never explain it all' is not scientifically sound. (I think that's it too)

 

[Wolke]

Evolution within certain limits is compatible with a belief in God, but evolutionism as a universal principle that affects and determines all things within the created order is a false doctrine that is contrary to a true understanding of God, and contrary to all orthodox religions, including Hinduism. We exist as eternal archetypes "incarnated" in matter. In our essential archetypal nature there is no "evolution", for truth is immutable. Moreover, evolution and degeneration often go hand in hand -- to "evolve" often means to fall from a higher state of existence. Evolution is not "progress".

 

[George-ananda]

This is something that occurred to me recently. I believe in evolution, and I believe in (a) God. I've pretty much always believed, despite my affinity for Hinduism and the Hindu deities and stories, that God created the universe(s), set down physical and karmic laws, and stepped back to "let nature take its course" following the rules, to whatever end. That includes the evolution of life. After all, it does follow certain patterns. Consider that all vertebrates have a tetrapod body plan (even snakes, which had limbs at one time) and use the same plan... a pattern set out somewhere sometime. On the other hand, somewhat conflicting with that laissez-faire approach, it might be argued that God still has a hand in it. That evolution of life and the universe is on-going creation. I myself am not sure which I go with.

That said, whether one believes the universe is 13.7 billion years old coming into existence from a singularity, or 6,000 years old, or it was created by Brahma who was born of a lotus that sprang from Vishnu's navel, or whatever creation story or theory one likes, does belief in (a) God creating the world/universe by default accept intelligent design?

I'm curious to see other perspectives, not debate or argue, but to see if anyone has thought this also.

Well I suppose it is possible that God created matter and then stepped aside so there then would be no Intelligent design to the universe. So it is possible to believe in God but not Intelligent Design.

I personally believe every speck of existence from the beginning to the end of the universe was scripted by God. It is all His cosmic thought-form. So I certainly believe in Intelligent Design but way beyond the scope of how that term is usually meant. More specifically I believe higher beings/nature spirits/devas fostered the evolution of life on earth.