Does Intelligent Design Require a God or Super Natural Being?

[Dante Writer]

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

Your opinion is not a fact.. Since many scientists now concur that life exists beyond our solar system you seem to be losing that argument.

“In the last 50 years, evidence has steadily mounted that the components and conditions we believe necessary for life are common and perhaps ubiquitous in our galaxy. The possibility that life has arisen elsewhere, and perhaps evolved intelligence, is plausible and warrants scientific inquiry. If you extrapolate on the planets they discovered, there are a trillion planets in the galaxy. That’s a lot of places for life. We know the majority of stars have planets, but what fraction of stars have planets that are more like the earth? It might be one in five.” – Dan Shostak

http://www.collective-evolution.com...xtraterrestrial-life-exists-without-question/

 

[fantome profane]

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.

Ok, as I expected you are using the word in an unusual way, but interesting.

 

[fantome profane]

Your opinion is not a fact.. Since many scientists now concur that life exists beyond our solar system you seem to be losing that argument.

“In the last 50 years, evidence has steadily mounted that the components and conditions we believe necessary for life are common and perhaps ubiquitous in our galaxy. The possibility that life has arisen elsewhere, and perhaps evolved intelligence, is plausible and warrants scientific inquiry. If you extrapolate on the planets they discovered, there are a trillion planets in the galaxy. That’s a lot of places for life. We know the majority of stars have planets, but what fraction of stars have planets that are more like the earth? It might be one in five.” – Dan Shostak

http://www.collective-evolution.com...xtraterrestrial-life-exists-without-question/

I am not making that argument. Yes you will find that many scientists, probably the majority, will agree that life in some form exists beyond our planet. You will also find that extremely few scientists accept the idea of intelligent design. Don't conflate those two ideas.

 

[Dante Writer]

I am not making that argument. Yes you will find that many scientists, probably the majority, will agree that life in some form exists beyond our planet. You will also find that extremely few scientists accept the idea of intelligent design. Don't conflate those two ideas.

The two are interconnected. If they believe life exists on other planets then the odds go way up in favor of Intelligent Design.

It took scientists many years to accept other theories including evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well your bias is pretty evident I would say lol!

When you start believing a theory of science has been proven and should be taught as fact you have created a religion that also has dangers and subverts students to your beliefs.

I can only assume you have not got a good grasp of the concepts involved, then.

 

[LuisDantas]

The two are interconnected. If they believe life exists on other planets then the odds go way up in favor of Intelligent Design.

I take it you are using some conflation of artificial selection and panspermy as your definition of "Intelligent Design"?

Most people who propose ID actually mean some sort of denial or weird co-optation of deeply distorted biological facts by that expression.

It took scientists many years to accept other theories including evolution.

What do you mean here?

 

[Valjean]

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.

ID is a "theory" of divine intervention and design, It has nothing to do with extant organisms bioengineering things or seeding planets. Look at its history and origins. ID is just another word for creationism.

Abiogenesis is Intelligent Design is Creationism


" 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.

It does. This is clear from the literature. Creationists were flailing under the revelations of science. They decided to disguise the theology by removing God from the literature and substituting "designer."

 

[Dante Writer]

ID is a "theory" of divine intervention and design, It has nothing to do with extant organisms bioengineering things or seeding planets. Look at its history and origins. ID is just another word for creationism.

Abiogenesis is Intelligent Design is Creationism


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

It does. This is clear from the literature. Creationists were flailing under the revelations of science. They decided to disguise the theology by removing God from the literature and substituting "designer."

No that is just your opinion and as I made clear the religions have used that theory to promote their agenda.

Religions propose God as the the cause of life in Genesis.

Intelligent Design is not creationism.

You can keep kicking that horse until you are blue in the face but it still will remain dead.

 

[Valjean]

Dante, to quote another poster enclose the quotation between

and

, this puts the quotation in a box and makes it easier to see who's saying what.

Darnit! Whatever you want to quote, put it between these two symbols . Let's see if that works.

Damme! Someone help me here. Show Dante how to quote.

 

[Dante Writer]

I take it you are using some conflation of artificial selection and panspermy as your definition of "Intelligent Design"?

Most people who propose ID actually mean some sort of denial or weird co-optation of deeply distorted biological facts by that expression.


What do you mean here?

Did you not bother to read the original post with the statement by Dawkin's?

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.

 

[Dante Writer]

I can only assume you have not got a good grasp of the concepts involved, then.

Did you have anything of substance to say or just trolling?

 

[Valjean]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/forrests-testimony-creationism-id

Here are the now-famous word-count charts used by Barbara Forrest in her testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover. These charts showed that the words "creation" and "creationist" were systematically changed to "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in the drafts for the book Of Pandas and People, in the aftermath of the 1987 Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard

.

 

[Dante Writer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

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.

 

[Valjean]

Ben Stein? Seriously? He's a complete wacko.
Dawkins -- you're taking him out of context. He does not believe inany supernatural designer.

Intelligent design is theology, it's creationism in a lab coat.

Here are the now-famous word-count charts used by Barbara Forrest in her testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover. These charts showed that the words "creation" and "creationist" were systematically changed to "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in the drafts for the book Of Pandas and People, in the aftermath of the 1987 Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard

 

[Dante Writer]

Ben Stein? Seriously? He's a complete wacko.
Dawkins -- you're taking him out of context. He does not believe inany supernatural designer.

Intelligent design is theology, it's creationism in a lab coat.

Your opinion of other people means nothing.

Dawkin's made it clear that ID was not creationism and did not require a god.

If you can not accept that it is not my problem and you are welcome to ignore my posts in the future and start your own discussion on the matter.

 

[Valjean]

It's not my opinion of Ben Stein. He's well known as a religio-political propagandist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

The general media response to the film has been largely unfavorable. Multiple reviews, including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described the film as propaganda...
The New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike..."
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) describes the film as dishonest and divisive propaganda, aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms.[16] Paul Kurtz, founder and late chairman of the Center for Inquiry, called the film “anti-science propaganda” and an “exercise in anti-intellectualism at its worst

The transformation from creationism to ID is clear from the discussions of the creationist community and the rewording of the book Of Pandas and People.

 

[Etritonakin]

Ok, as I expected you are using the word in an unusual way, but interesting.

Languages formed by the ignorant must be allowed to be used in unusual ways. Definitions must be allowed some elasticity until understanding allows for new words with more specific and accurate definitions.

One who understood all could produce a language which accurately described all.

Zep 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

....and the creationists and textbook writers/approvers are part of the same "side."

Ahem, excuse me. I think my post discredits that assumption. It highlights the opposite, that textbook writers/approvers side with evolution. Or, are you implying they do so disingenuously, presenting as fact (what they know to be) obvious lies, as in this instance? That would indeed be sly and deceitful!

 

[Valjean]

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/14/textbook-case-anti-science-245500.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...book-approval-to-ease-tensions-over-evolution
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...schools_undermining_the_charter_movement.html
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-ways-creationist-textbook-sabotaged-science/

 

[Sapiens]

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!

What Dawkins actually said was: "Well, it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, 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 our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point."

The bolded section answers your question. You can stop carrying water into the quote mine.