Does Intelligent Design Require a God or Super Natural Being?

[Dante Writer]

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!

 

[Skwim]

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.

Nah, The reason evolutionists and creationists may get into heated battles (actually, it's more like two intractable stances) is that evolution looms as an adversary to many of the Christian interpretations of the Bible. Some Christians feel evolution challenges the veracity of their Bible, and they can't stand it. They expect people to either agree with their interpretation or keep their **** mouths shut. Evolutionists couldn't care less what creationists believe---want to believe that intelligent design is synonymous with a belief in Mighty Mouse? Go right ahead---however, they do care when creationists try to subvert science in public school classrooms. THIS is what creates the outward conflict between the two.


.

 

[Parsimony]

No, just something or someone intelligent.

 

[Valjean]

Intelligent design presupposes some intentional intelligence. There is no evidence for this, and the mechanism by which this intelligent entity operates -- magic -- raises some logical questions, as well.

 

[Skwim]

Not really. Just something beyond us that's intelligent. No reason for it to be a god.

Brings up the question: Wouldn't a being so powerful and intelligent deserve to be considered a god?


.

 

[Valjean]

Whatever you call it, where is the evidence for it? Why is it being proposed when a sufficient natural mechanism already exists? Why posit a new and unnecessary cause?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Not really. Just something beyond us that's intelligent. No reason for it to be a god.

Well where would you draw the line of saying the Higher power is "God'? If it was an ET maybe it might be a thousand years advanced or a billion or more years ahead of us. What if it had the same capabilities and or similar attributes of our or the other religion's God's ?
First let me back up a little bit and say it's difficult to have discussions about religion without 'emotion' mucking up accurate concise discussion. As a Christian being honest with myself about some of the more difficult subjects* and others including when I am witnessing is both scary and challenging. * By difficult subjects I mean the ET=God metaphor etc.
But if we are to be honest with ourselves the question of ET if they exist raises some tough 'what if' scenarios etc. Like 'what if' an billion year advanced (from us) alien race or individual decides to visit earth? It would certainly be nearly immortal if not immortal. It may have even created planets stars and yes even this universe! I know how blasphemous that sounds, but what if? If the ET had attained spirit meaning a disembodied self, and all the arbitrates of the Hebrew God, could or would it be God or just a hollow caricature of our beloved God? God does not tell us what he is or where he came from. Of course I would for emotional reasons highly prefer for God to be spirit to always existed in infinity and undeniable omnipotence, no ET of whatever origin need apply. But thats my emotional love for God and Jesus Christ speaking, isn't it?

 

[Valjean]

So it's either atheism with an advanced but natural entity pulling the strings, or an advanced, intelligently created entity pulling the strings.
This doesn't address the question, it just moves the question of a creator back a step.

 

[Dante Writer]

Nah, The reason evolutionists and creationists may get into heated battles (actually, it's more like two intractable stances) is that evolution looms as an adversary to many of the Christian interpretations of the Bible. Some Christians feel evolution challenges the veracity of their Bible, and they can't stand it. They expect people to either agree with their interpretation or keep their **** mouths shut. Evolutionists couldn't care less what creationists believe---want to believe that intelligent design is synonymous with a belief in Mighty Mouse? Go right ahead---however, they do care when creationists try to subvert science in public school classrooms. THIS is what creates the outward conflict between the two.


.

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.

My debate question was:
Does Intelligent Design Require a God or Super Natural Being?

 

[Dante Writer]

Whatever you call it, where is the evidence for it? Why is it being proposed when a sufficient natural mechanism already exists? Why posit a new and unnecessary cause?

When a sufficient natural mechanism exists?

If that natural mechanism was obvious I am sure scientists would be all over it but they still have not found a way to replicate that mechanism.

That then leads to Dawkin's possibility that life did not originate on earth and the mechanism of evolution may be built in to our DNA and not the result of mutations.

 

[Valjean]

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.

My debate question was:
Does Intelligent Design Require a God or Super Natural Being?

There is no "proven" theory in science. Science doesn't prove things, it just gathers evidence, formulates explanations for phenomena, then tests them by trying to disprove them.
Religious beliefs are not subject to testing. They cannot be disproved. Something untestable or not disprovable is not even within the purview of science.
A fact, in science, is just a theory that is so well supported that it's generally accepted as true, but, unlike religion, no scientific fact is immune to new evidence or experimental disproval.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Nah, The reason evolutionists and creationists may get into heated battles (actually, it's more like two intractable stances) is that evolution looms as an adversary to many of the Christian interpretations of the Bible. Some Christians feel evolution challenges the veracity of their Bible, and they can't stand it. They expect people to either agree with their interpretation or keep their **** mouths shut. Evolutionists couldn't care less what creationists believe---want to believe that intelligent design is synonymous with a belief in Mighty Mouse? Go right ahead---however, they do care when creationists try to subvert science in public school classrooms. THIS is what creates the outward conflict between the two.

Your description of the Christian/Evolutionists may fit many Christians, but its incomplete. Most Christians would not be so diametrically opposed to evolutionists if ID was mentioned in the schools as a viable alternative option to Darwinism. I am sure the Christians would make peace with the evolutionists with just that mention, not a course and not taught*. Christians dont like an uneven playing field, ie evolution or nothing, and I as a Christian dont like the insinuation that not accepting every nuance of evolution is evidence of backwardness, irrationally, or worse. The reason I would not like ID taught at this time is because there is no standard theory of ID. What the leadership of Christian and other religions should do is stop bickering among ourselves and invest in the time and expense to develop a standard theory of ID. Most of the work is already accomplished by the evolutionists. We just dont agree on the origins and methods of 'transition' ie the mechanism of change etc of most species. Even the evolutionists have had a rocky road in some areas of the famous theory. By that I mean after Darwin published new evidence emerged over the decades forcing some of the theory to be rewritten etc. Just as women have their prerogative so does the scientific method.

 

[Dante Writer]

There is no "proven" theory in science. Science doesn't prove things, it just gathers evidence, formulates explanations for phenomena, then tests them by trying to disprove them.
Religious beliefs are not subject to testing. They cannot be disproved. Something untestable or not disprovable is not even within the purview of science.
A fact, in science, is just a theory that is so well supported that it's generally accepted as true, but, unlike religion, no scientific fact is immune to new evidence or experimental disproval.

Exactly and neither are proven so neither should be taught as fact. Yet schools do often portray Darwin's evolution theory as a fact.

 

[Valjean]

When a sufficient natural mechanism exists?

If that natural mechanism was obvious I am sure scientists would be all over it but they still have not found a way to replicate that mechanism.

That then leads to Dawkin's possibility that life did not originate on earth and the mechanism of evolution may be built in to our DNA and not the result of mutations.

The various mechanisms of biological change described by the ToE are sufficient mechanisms, Dante. Magical intervention simply isn't necessary, so why make up new, unnecessary mechanisms?
A. What does replication have to do with it?
B. All of the mechanisms described by the ToE have been observed, and what mechanism can you name that has not been replicated in the lab?
If our genetics were programmed by little Green Men who seeded us on this planet, the question of how the LGM came to be still remains. You're just changing the venue.
There is also, by the way, considerable fossil and genetic evidence that H sapiens is the result of a long line of primate evolution.

 

[Valjean]

Exactly and neither are proven so neither should be taught as fact. Yet schools do often portray Darwin's evolution theory as a fact.

Darwin's theory is a fact.
A fact is not a proven theory. Theories are never proven. Science doesn't prove things. Only mathematics proves things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Germ theory of disease: Theory.
Round Earth: Theory.
Heliocentrism: Theory.
Gravity: Theory.

 

[Dante Writer]

So it's either atheism with an advanced but natural entity pulling the strings, or an advanced, intelligently created entity pulling the strings.
This doesn't address the question, it just moves the question of a creator back a step.

A creator is a religious perception too close to a God ideology.

The intelligent designer could be no more intelligent than a dandelion on a distant planet that releases it's seeds into space and some landed here or as intelligent as an alien that landed and took a **** on earth leaving organic mater that started the whole process.

 

[Dante Writer]

The various mechanisms of biological change described by the ToE are sufficient mechanisms, Dante. Magical intervention simply isn't necessary, so why make up new, unnecessary mechanisms?
A. What does replication have to do with it?
B. All of the mechanisms described by the ToE have been observed, and what mechanism can you name that has not been replicated in the lab?
If our genetics were programmed by little Green Men who seeded us on this planet, the question of how the LGM came to be still remains. You're just changing the venue.
There is also, by the way, considerable fossil and genetic evidence that H sapiens is the result of a long line of primate evolution.

Magical interventions?

Can you show me anywhere I said magical interventions as I quoted Dawkins?

Has a life form organism been created from inorganic materials and I missed it?

There are also major gaps in that fossil history in fact billions of gaps that do not validate a smooth evolution that Darwin claimed would be found.

 

[Valjean]

A creator is a religious perception too close to a God ideology.

The intelligent designer could be no more intelligent than a dandelion on a distant planet that releases it's seeds into space and some landed here or as intelligent as an alien that landed and took a **** on earth leaving organic mater that started the whole process.

OK. And how would this not be entirely in agreement with the ToE?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

There is no "proven" theory in science. Science doesn't prove things, it just gathers evidence, formulates explanations for phenomena, then tests them by trying to disprove them.
Religious beliefs are not subject to testing. They cannot be disproved. Something untestable or not disprovable is not even within the purview of science.
A fact, in science, is just a theory that is so well supported that it's generally accepted as true, but, unlike religion, no scientific fact is immune to new evidence or experimental disproval.

Hi Valjean, well if we can get all philosophical about it, science and religion are somewhat similar! Both require faith and both use evidence as well! Evidence is just that. Much of religion can be vetted by evidence, however its more philosophical and circumstantial in nature than empirical, which is to be expected. And I must take issue with the claim that science doesn't claim to prove a concept. The off the record truth is that much science is regarded as fact and the of the science establishments pet theories are considered scientific law. Evolution is a good, maybe glaring example of the latter. The sad truth is we must accept everything and I do mean e- v- e- r- y- t- h- i- n- g on faith. Who wouldn't wager a bet that in two thousand years most of our science will be looked upon as quaint myth or if we are lucky something less embarrassing. Please do no misunderstand me I am absolutely amazed by cutting edge science. I love all science, especially space science and cosmology and astronomy. Hopefully one day metaphysics and physics will once again be pals. Godel would approve!

 

[George-ananda]

your opinions are welcome no matter how bizarre!

I would not even call Dawkins possible scenario as intelligent design as it sounds like it is saying the advanced civilization occurred through only material Darwinian means and we are just a genetic creation of theirs; like we create a new strain of corn or something.

I have come to believe life on earth was fostered by nature spirits/beings and I think it is unfortunate that a lot of people think of intelligent design as meaning only a direct creation of the Abrahamic God. Perhaps we need different terms for each idea instead of using the umbrella term 'intelligent design' for each idea.