Does Intelligent Design Require a God or Super Natural Being?

[Etritonakin]

One of the reasons I believe evolutionists and creationists get into heated battles is because religions and specifically the Christian religion has made intelligent design synonymous with a belief in a God or Super Natural Being and that completely ignores the other forms that Intelligent design could take.

I would first point out Dawkin's statements as evidence:

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Intelligent Design therefore does not replace the evolution theory and it does not require a God or Super Natural Being and is a logical theory that life on earth was seeded intentionally or accidentally from another planet.

This would explain how evolution could happen at a faster rate and why we do not find the smooth progression in our fossil records as it may be hidden in our DNA to evolve when a condition is present.

Just my thoughts and your opinions are welcome no matter how bizarre!

As we are nearing the point of being able to design life forms, God's direct participation is not necessary -though our present abilities require that which preceded them.

It depends what one is saying might be intelligently designed.

If our entire universe was intelligently designed, then it would obviously require a designer. God is not credited with creating only the Earth -but "the worlds", "the heavens", etc. -the entire universe. (It is also written that of the increase of the government of the Prince of Peace there will be no end -so our universe may not be the only one to ever exist -or may already be similar to fruit on a vine -or maybe it can be expanded [or subdivided, depending on your perspective] infinitely.)

In our present environment, we know that certain arrangements of things cannot exist without an intelligent designer -they do not happen "naturally" based on the present nature of our environment.

However, our environment was not always of its present nature -though it is based on the nature of the "nature" which preceded its present arrangement. What preceded it must have been of a nature to allow and cause it.

Knowing the most fundamental nature of all things -even that which preceded the big bang -would reveal what required intelligent design.

Our present environment is based on that which preceded it, so we may have enough information -without realizing it or seeing it correctly -to determine whether the universe required an intelligent designer.

It seems to me that design and intelligence are parts of the same whole -and must have initially developed in tandem.

 

[Dante Writer]

Are we talking about original abioenesis or bioengineering?
You refer to bioengineering by an existing species. Sure, that could happen, but where did these bioengineers come from -- earlier bioengineers? Is it bioengineers all the way down?

"You refer to bioengineering by an existing species."

They may still exist or not.

"When I say mechanism vs magic I'm referring to abiogenesis."

We were discussing Intelligent Design so that should lead you to bioengineering with a planned evolution built into DNA

"but where did these bioengineers come from"

I don't know and it is not relevant to my OP. I asked if a God was necessary to have intelligent design.

My point of this post was to separate religion and a belief in God from the theory of Intelligent design.

 

[Dante Writer]

As we are nearing the point of being able to design life forms, God's direct participation is not necessary -though our present abilities require that which preceded them.

It depends what one is saying might be intelligently designed.

If our entire universe was intelligently designed, then it would obviously require a designer. God is not credited with creating only the Earth -but "the worlds", "the heavens", etc. -the entire universe. (It is also written that of the increase of the government of the Prince of Peace there will be no end -so our universe may not be the only one to ever exist -or may already be similar to fruit on a vine -or maybe it can be expanded [or subdivided, depending on your perspective] infinitely.)

In our present environment, we know that certain arrangements of things cannot exist without an intelligent designer -they do not happen "naturally" based on the present nature of our environment.

However, our environment was not always of its present nature -though it is based on the nature of the "nature" which preceded its present arrangement. What preceded it must have been of a nature to allow and cause it.

Knowing the most fundamental nature of all things -even that which preceded the big bang -would reveal what required intelligent design.

Our present environment is based on that which preceded it, so we may have enough information -without realizing it or seeing it correctly -to determine whether the universe required an intelligent designer.

It seems to me that design and intelligence are parts of the same whole -and must have initially developed in tandem.

I appreciate you sharing your philosophy!

 

[fantome profane]

" but the point is that we are the product of natural evolution."

That is just your assumption because that is what you were taught in school. I have shown you that Dawkin's and Crick both said intelligent design is possible. If you want to deny their experience in the matter that is fine by me.

I have just shown you that we already create organism using genetic manipulation and cloning that are not natural processes and here you are still telling me it has to be a natural process.

Unless you can show me verified evidence of organic life forms coming from inorganic materials you have just a theory. One of many theories and the more scientists look at the possibility that life exists outside our solar system the more they agree it exists.

That means it may have developed way beyond our understanding of science and the life on this planet could be seeded and is not natural.

The intent of my post was to show that it did not require a God or supernatural being and still is a result of intelligent design and I have done that.

If you can not accept that it is not my problem.

Pick a side, are we the result of natural evolution, or is there a supernatural designer?

If your answer involves alien intelligent designers then the question becomes are the aliens the result of natural evolution or is there a supernatural designer?

 

[Etritonakin]

I appreciate you sharing your philosophy!

Sure... I am just considering the matter... we'll know when we know.

 

[Dante Writer]

Pick a side, are we the result of natural evolution, or is there a supernatural designer?

If your answer involves alien intelligent designers then the question becomes are the aliens the result of natural evolution or is there a supernatural designer?

Oh that old game lol!

Where the original designers came from is not known and not relevant. The only thing relevant is if they existed and did seed this earth then every thing you think you know about evolution just went out the window.

In just the last 10 years we have made huge strides in genetic modification and cloning. Imagine how far advanced an intelligent life form might be in the sciences.

My point of this discussion was just to separate a belief in religion and God from the theory of Intelligent design not to prove intelligent design did not use some form of evolution.

I accomplished that goal.

 

[Valjean]

" but the point is that we are the product of natural evolution."

That is just your assumption because that is what you were taught in school. I have shown you that Dawkin's and Crick both said intelligent design is possible. If you want to deny their experience in the matter that is fine by me.
It is the consensus of all of biology, and the evidence is overwhelming. You're misconstruing Dawkins and Crick. Read your quotations in context. They did not believe in Intelligent Design.
I have just shown you that we already create organism using genetic manipulation and cloning that are not natural processes and here you are still telling me it has to be a natural process.We're not talking bioengineering. Intelligent Design is a "theory" of abiogenesis

Unless you can show me verified evidence of organic life forms coming from inorganic materials you have just a theory. One of many theories and the more scientists look at the possibility that life exists outside our solar system the more they agree it exists. You don't know what a theory is, and what does extraterrestrial life have to do with the ToE or abiogenesis?

That means it may have developed way beyond our understanding of science and the life on this planet could be seeded and is not natural.

The intent of my post was to show that it did not require a God or supernatural being and still is a result of intelligent design and I have done that. The controversy isn't about panspermia, it's about origins. ID proposes God as the cause of life's genesis, ie: magic.

If you can not accept that it is not my problem.

 

[Etritonakin]

Pick a side, are we the result of natural evolution, or is there a supernatural designer?

If your answer involves alien intelligent designers then the question becomes are the aliens the result of natural evolution or is there a supernatural designer?

I don't think there are any "sides" in reality. Design, creativity, evolution all exist -are all part of the same thing.
Technically, we are essentially becoming supernatural designers -as we increase in our ability to manipulate nature -to make it subject to us.

An overall supernatural designer would be one to which all was subject. As everything HAS design -can be said to be OF a certain design even if not directly designed, there most certainly IS an overall designer of everything -to which all is subject -so the question is really one of self-awareness.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't think there are any "sides" in reality. Design, creativity, evolution all exist -are all part of the same thing.
Technically, we are essentially becoming supernatural designers -as we increase in our ability to manipulate nature -to make it subject to us.

An overall supernatural designer would be one to which all was subject. As everything HAS design, there most certainly IS an overall designer of everything -to which all is subject -so the question is really one of self-awareness.

I think you need to explain how you are using the word "supernatural", what is your definition of "supernatural"? In what way are we becoming "supernatural"?

And the idea that there is a design to everything is a statement of faith, not science.

 

[Valjean]

Oh that old game lol!

Where the original designers came from is not known and not relevant. The only thing relevant is if they existed and did seed this earth then every thing you think you know about evolution just went out the window. But that's what we're talking about. ID is a theory of abiogenesis.
If life was seeded on Earth it happened awfully early in the game. The fossil and genetic records show a clear, biological evolution ober the past couple billion years.

In just the last 10 years we have made huge strides in genetic modification and cloning. Imagine how far advanced an intelligent life form might be in the sciences.

My point of this discussion was just to separate a belief in religion and God from the theory of Intelligent design not to prove intelligent design did not use some form of evolution. Again, ID is a "theory" of abiogenesis and guided evolution, not panspermia or genetic engineering by extant organisms. There is neither evidence nor need for either magic poofing or guided evolution.

I accomplished that goal.

 

[Dante Writer]

Whether they believe that is what happened is irrelevant. They both proposed it as a possible origin of life for earth.

Neither denied that theory and it is just as logical (more so) than organic life forming from inorganic materials.

Abiogenesis is NOT Intelligent design:

Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter.


" ID proposes God as the cause of life's genesis"

No it does not. It proposes some intelligent life form was involved in the process.

You are flailing madly trying to defend your position and making nonsensical statements.

 

[fantome profane]

Whether they believe that is what happened is irrelevant. They both proposed it as a possible origin of life for earth.

Neither denied that theory and it is just as logical (more so) than organic life forming from inorganic materials.

Abiogenesis is NOT Intelligent design:

Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter.


" ID proposes God as the cause of life's genesis"

No it does not. It proposes some intelligent life form was involved in the process.

You are flailing madly trying to defend your position and making nonsensical statements.

And although you reject the theory of abiogenesis you suggested nothing to replace it.

 

[Dante Writer]

"If life was seeded on Earth it happened awfully early in the game. The fossil and genetic records show a clear, biological evolution ober the past couple billion years"

Probably but not necessarily. The Cambrian explosion shows life could be seeded and generate quickly to an evolved form at any time.

The genetic records of early life forms do not even exist. Only speculation.

"Again, ID is a "theory" of abiogenesis and guided evolution"

Again, no it is not and whether it involved evolution is debatable. We clone organisms and modify genetics to produce organism all the time that does not involve evolution.

I know you want to believe what you have been taught in school but the reality is that the theory you were taught is just one of many and ID is another theory that must be seriously considered and researched.

 

[Dante Writer]

And although you reject the theory of abiogenesis you suggested nothing to replace it.

What part of genetic modification and cloning did you not understand?

You are going in circles chasing your tail.

 

[fantome profane]

"If life was seeded on Earth it happened awfully early in the game. The fossil and genetic records show a clear, biological evolution ober the past couple billion years"

Probably but not necessarily. The Cambrian explosion shows life could be seeded and generate quickly to an evolved form at any time.

The genetic records of early life forms do not even exist. Only speculation.

"Again, ID is a "theory" of abiogenesis and guided evolution"

Again, no it is not and whether it involved evolution is debatable. We clone organisms and modify genetics to produce organism all the time that does not involve evolution.

I know you want to believe what you have been taught in school but the reality is that the theory you were taught is just one of many and ID is another theory that must be seriously considered and researched.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. There is a difference.

 

[Valjean]

Well I guess its debatable. I don't know. To me there would be a difference between aliens creating us and some omnipotent being,

Exactly -- apples and pineapples.
Alien bioengineers would presumably be using ordinary chemistry and medical procedures. No-one disputes the possibility of bioengineering. What's in dispute is Magic Poofing as the cause of life's origins or magical intervention steering the process of evolution.
Magic Poofing is an extrardinary claim and needs evidence if it's to be taken seriously, nor is there any need for guidance of the process of evolution. The mechanisms of change are known, observable and natural.

 

[fantome profane]

What part of genetic modification and cloning did you not understand?

You are going in circles chasing your tail.

How do either of these things correspond to abiogenesis? You need genes to have genetic modification, where do those genes come from if you reject abiogenesis? Before you can clone something you need something to clone, where did that come from if you reject the idea of abiogenesis?

 

[Dante Writer]

Exactly -- apples and pineapples.
Alien bioengineers would presumably be using ordinary chemistry and medical procedures. No-one disputes the possibility of bioengineering. What's in dispute is Magic Poofing as the cause of life's origins or magical intervention steering the process of evolution.
Magic Poofing is an extrardinary claim and needs evidence if it's to be taken seriously, nor is there any need for guidance of the process of evolution. The mechanisms of change are known, observable and natural.

"Alien bioengineers would presumably be using ordinary chemistry and medical procedures."

You assume alien biongineers would be at the same level of scientific understanding and technology that you are.

They may have been around for billions of years before this planet was seeded and be so far advanced in science what you do today would be considered child's play.

 

[Etritonakin]

I think you need to explain how you are using the word "supernatural", what is your definition of "supernatural"? In what way are we becoming "supernatural"?

And the idea that there is a design to everything is a statement of faith, not science.

Nothing that actually exists can be other than "natural". "Super"natural does not mean "UN"natural -but having power OVER nature -what might otherwise "naturally" occur without influence -the ability to manipulate that which exists -or simply being beyond our present understanding or ability.

Similarly, the "miraculous" is not unscientific -it is simply not yet understood.

To say that everything WAS designed may be a statement of faith -but to say that everything that exists HAS design or IS OF a certain design does not necessarily acknowledge the existence of a self-aware designer.

It is an absolute FACT that everything HAS design -or IS OF a certain deSIGN -because everything that actually exists can eventually be understood and deSCRIBED.

For example.... one might say that the design of a bird allows it to fly. That has nothing to do with whether or not it was intelligently designed.

 

[Dante Writer]

How do either of these things correspond to abiogenesis? You need genes to have genetic modification, where do those genes come from if you reject abiogenesis? Before you can clone something you need something to clone, where did that come from if you reject the idea of abiogenesis?

Again, I have never said intelligent designers did not use some evolutionary process.

I am not arguing that evolution does not happen. I am showing you that it may not occur the way you think it did naturally on this earth and could have been seeded by intelligent design.

Now I have walked you around this same circle 3 times and you are just going to have to accept it or not.