Does Intelligent Design Require a God or Super Natural Being?

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Genetics helsp us fill in those gaps. There is so much more evidence for evolution that merely the fossil record.

 

[Valjean]

magical interventions?

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

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.

Where did Darwin claim such evidence of a smooth evolution would be found? I thought he was skeptical that such evidence would ever be found.
There are gaps, true, but the record is complete enough that no reasonable person would conclude that a gradual evolution of form did not occur.

Any intervention involving an alteration of the natural laws of physics and chemistry, such as is understood in intentional creation, divine guidance, &c, is magic -- effect without comprehensible cause.
The mechanisms of the ToE are sufficient to explain the diversity of life on Earth. No divine/intentional/magical intervention is needed.

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

Yes -- by several billion years.

 

[Dante Writer]

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.

I agree that lumping all theories of intelligent design together is not good and I get attacked by both sides when I start to explain other forms of intelligent design. The Christians think I am dethroning their God and the evolutionists think I am creating a new God.

Extremists exist on both sides of that debate.

 

[Dante Writer]

Where did Darwin claim such evidence of a smooth evolution would be found? I thought he was skeptical that such evidence would ever be found.
There are gaps, true, but the record is complete enough that no reasonable person would conclude that a gradual evolution of form did not occur.

Any intervention involving an alteration of the natural laws of physics and chemistry, such as is understood in intentional creation, divine guidance, &c, is magic -- effect without comprehensible cause.
The mechanisms of the ToE are sufficient to explain the diversity of life on Earth. No divine/intentional/magical intervention is needed.
Yes -- by several billion years.

Darwin claimed evolution would be a smooth and slow process and the fossil evidence does not bear that out.

Are you saying Dawkin's was promoting magic?

Nothing he or I said violates any natural laws unless you want to believe life only arose on this one special planet and then it is you exhibiting magical thinking.

That was funny but now has any scientist replicated that?

 

[Dante Writer]

Genetics helsp us fill in those gaps. There is so much more evidence for evolution that merely the fossil record.

Genetics can be very misleading. We share 50% of the same DNA as a Banana.

Geneticists can say there are links but without fossil evidence it is still guessing.

Don't get me wrong- I believe some forms of evolution do happen within a species. Just when you start turning fish into humans without fossil evidence you are really stepping out there into just guessing not science.

 

[Dante Writer]

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.

I agree and well said!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Genetics can be very misleading. We share 50% of the same DNA as a Banana.

Well, your comment is misleading. You could maybe say that approximately 50% of human DNA nucleotides are present in banana DNA.

Geneticists can say there are links but without fossil evidence it is still guessing.

The evidence that backs up evolutionary theory is drawn from almost all areas of science. We don't look at each bit of evidence from each area in isolation, where we only look at the fossil record, or we only look at genetic research or we only look at the geological record. All the evidence combined together points to the same conclusion, which is why the theory of evolution is as robust as it is. If there are holes in the fossil record, genetics fills them in quite nicely.

Don't get me wrong- I believe some forms of evolution do happen within a species. Just when you start turning fish into humans without fossil evidence you are really stepping out there into just guessing not science.

We don't have to rely solely on fossil evidence.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160307153051.htm

 

[Dante Writer]

Well, your comment is misleading. You could maybe say that approximately 50% of human DNA nucleotides are present in banana DNA.

The evidence that backs up evolutionary theory is drawn from almost all areas of science. We don't look at each bit of evidence from each area in isolation, where we only look at the fossil record, or we only look at genetic research or we only look at the geological record. All the evidence combined together points to the same conclusion, which is why the theory of evolution is as robust as it is. If there are holes in the fossil record, genetics fills them in quite nicely.

We don't have to rely solely on fossil evidence.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160307153051.htm

"We don't look at each bit of evidence"

Who is we- are you a geneticist or what is your professional training in the subject?

You are adding nothing of substance and just repeating that we are geneticists so we know how to fill in the gaps.

All the evidence combined points to several conclusions some of which completely refute the other conclusions.

You are aware that there are several theories of evolution and not just Darwin's right?

Evolution by Natural Selection, Front-loaded Evolution, Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo), Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering, Somatic Selection, Structuralist / Platonic Evolution, Biological Self-Organization, Epigenetic Evolution, Evolution by Symbiogenesis, and Teleological Selection.

So please tell us all first are you a geneticist or what your professional background is and which theory of evolution you think you have concluded with your research?

 

[SkepticThinker]

"We don't look at each bit of evidence"

Who is we- are you a geneticist or what is your professional training in the subject?

You are adding nothing of substance and just repeating that we are geneticists so we know how to fill in the gaps.

I provided a link to a very good example of scientists doing exactly what I was talking about.

All the evidence combined points to several conclusions some of which completely refute the other conclusions.

All the evidence combined points to evolution being a fact of reality.

You are aware that there are several theories of evolution and not just Darwin's right?

Evolution by Natural Selection, Front-loaded Evolution, Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo), Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering, Somatic Selection, Structuralist / Platonic Evolution, Biological Self-Organization, Epigenetic Evolution, Evolution by Symbiogenesis, and Teleological Selection.

So please tell us all first are you a geneticist or what your professional background is and which theory of evolution you think you have concluded with your research?

There is one theory of evolution. There are several hypotheses regarding the different mechanisms involved that are still being debated within the science community and there's no reason that they have to be mutually exclusive. Discussion and testing about the degree to which each are related to one another, the degree to which each applies and under which conditions will continue to help us understand the specific details involved in evolution. Punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism, for example. Gould and Dawkins had a longstanding disagreement on that one.

 

[Dante Writer]

I provided a link to a very good example of scientists doing exactly what I was talking about.

All the evidence combined points to evolution being a fact of reality.


There is one theory of evolution. There are several hypotheses regarding the different mechanisms involved that are still being debated within the science community. Punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism, for example. Gould and Dawkins had a longstanding disagreement on that one.

"All the evidence combined points to evolution being a fact of reality."

Well I had no idea you were the smartest scientist in the world and had already conducted all the research and concluded evolution was no longer a theory and is now a fact.

Where is your research published so I can buy a copy?

Oh so by we you meant they and you have no experience in genetics or background in science and are just accepting their word for it.

No- there are several theories of evolution as I just gave you. You did not answer the question as to which one you think you have conclusions to and no conclusion would satisfy all of those so are you lying?

I can post links all day but that only proves you know how to use google.

I asked you simple questions and you danced all around them which tells me you have no clue what you are talking about and just like to argue.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Well, if you consider belief in the laws of physics faith, then I'll concede that both require faith. But this scientific "faith" is based on a great deal of observation with no variations observed. Religious faith, on the other hand -- the metaphysical articles, anyway -- lack evidence and aren't falsifiable, if they're testable at all. Moreover, if much of religion could be 'vetted by evidence', I'd expect a great deal more religious consensus in the world.
As for proof and facts, keep in mind that theories usually are facts, and no theory is ever regarded as a law. Laws and theories are different animals. A law is something like the constant speed of light or conservation of mass.
See Gould's article: ( http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html )

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.

Now you're getting Cartesian on me, MrMr. I think you're stretching a point beyond usefulness in this particular application.
As for the reputation of science in 2,000 years, I'll take that bet. Unlike alchemy, scientific methodology is pretty bulletproof.

Godel would approve!

Capra (the Tao of Physics) and Zukav (The Dancing Wu Li Masters) already do.

 

[fantome profane]

I think the point is that the only entities that we know of that are capable of the kind of design we are talking about are themselves the product of natural evolution. The hypothetical scenario that Dawkins proposes in this answer is not an alternative to natural evolution as it would require natural evolution for such alien intelligent designers to exist. Intelligent design does not in fact solve the problem. Natural evolution on its own however is a satisfactory explanation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"All the evidence combined points to evolution being a fact of reality."

Well I had no idea you were the smartest scientist in the world and had already conducted all the research and concluded evolution was no longer a theory and is now a fact.

Where is your research published so I can buy a copy?

Oh so by we you meant they and you have no experience in genetics or background in science and are just accepting their word for it.

Evolution is an accepted fact of reality by all major scientific institutions and organizations. The theory of evolution is one of the most robust and well evidenced scientific theories in existence, all evidence discovered since it was first put on paper 150+ years ago has only reinforced it. It's easily falsifiable, and yet it stands.

No- there are several theories of evolution as I just gave you. You did not answer the question as to which one you think you have conclusions to and no conclusion would satisfy all of those so are you lying?

There is one theory. I explained to you that the things you pointed out are mechanisms that operate within the umbrella of evolution and that they are not mutually exclusive. So there is no answer to your question. Why you're repeating the same thing again in light of the explanation provided, I don't know.

I'm not sure you know what lying is either.

I can post links all day but that only proves you know how to use google.

No, you're not getting it. I post links to back up my claims. That's how it works.

I asked you simple questions and you danced all around them which tells me you have no clue what you are talking about and just like to argue.

Providing you with explanations and links to back up my claims hardly amounts to "dancing all around."

 

[Skwim]

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

Yup, and your erroneous belief is

". . .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."​

Evolutionists don't give a flying finger what "religions and specifically the Christian religion" have made intelligent design synonymous with. They can make it synonymous with chicken fried steak for all evolutionists care.

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.

Possibly, but many reasonable Christians recognize that creationism has no place in public school science classrooms.

I am sure the Christians would make peace with the evolutionists with just that mention, not a course and not taught*.

No doubt many would be delighted with a mention, but from what we've seen of the creationism-in-the-classroom movement, it wouldn't be enough.

Christians dont like an uneven playing field, ie evolution or nothing,

So we've seen. Thing is, they want in on the game, but insist on changing the rules. Ain't going to happen.

and I as a Christian dont like the insinuation that not accepting every nuance of evolution is evidence of backwardness, irrationally, or worse.

Not every nuance of evolution for sure, but Christians have only themselves to blame for how they are perceived.

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.

And this is the beauty of science, it's willing to correct itself where necessary.


.

 

[Dante Writer]

I think the point is that the only entities that we know of that are capable of the kind of design we are talking about are themselves the product of natural evolution. The hypothetical scenario that Dawkins proposes in this answer is not an alternative to natural evolution as it would require natural evolution for such alien intelligent designers to exist. Intelligent design does not in fact solve the problem. Natural evolution on its own however is a satisfactory explanation.

OK but that misses the point of the question:

Does Intelligent Design Require a God or Super Natural Being?

I was not proposing that Intelligent Design did not require or use some evolutionary process.

It just removes the idea that the intelligent designer is a God and that is the hang up many evolutionists have when they consider the Intelligent Design theory.

That opens up a discussion avenue for people from both sides of the debate to find common ground I believe.

 

[Dante Writer]

Yup, and your erroneous belief is

". . .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."​

Evolutionists don't give a flying finger what "religions and specifically the Christian religion" have made intelligent design synonymous with. They can make it synonymous with chicken fried steak for all evolutionists care.




Possibly, but many reasonable Christians recognize that creationism has no place in public school science classrooms.


No doubt many would be delighted with a mention, but from what we've seen of the creationism-in-the-classroom movement, it wouldn't be enough.


So we've seen. Thing is, they want in on the game, but insist on changing the rules. Ain't going to happen.


Not every nuance of evolution for sure, but Christians have only themselves to blame for how they are perceived.


And this is the beauty of science, it's willing to correct itself where necessary.


.

Oh I am sorry- I did not know you spoke for all evolutionists?

I have been in many heated debates with evolutionists so next time I will have to tell them you said they don't care.

Many more Christians would probably prefer to have intelligent design also taught as a theory.

That can happen if Intelligent Design is not linked to a belief in God as was the point of my post.

 

[Valjean]

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.

By magic I mean any intentionality, guided development or design by unetectible entities/forces.
A life form was created from inorganic materials ~3.8 billion years ago. Don't feel bad -- I missed it too.
What does Darwin have to do with modern evolutionary Biology?

Darwin claimed evolution would be a smooth and slow process and the fossil evidence does not bear that out.

Modern biology abandoned the 'smooth and slow' hypothesis a long time ago.

Well I had no idea you were the smartest scientist in the world and had already conducted all the research and concluded evolution was no longer a theory and is now a fact.

It's a theory and a fact. Theories are facts.

 

[Dante Writer]

Evolution is an accepted fact of reality by all major scientific institutions and organizations. The theory of evolution is one of the most robust and well evidenced scientific theories in existence, all evidence discovered since it was first put on paper 150+ years ago has only reinforced it. It's easily falsifiable, and yet it stands.


There is one theory. I explained to you that the things you pointed out are mechanisms that operate within the umbrella of evolution and that they are not mutually exclusive. So there is no answer to your question. Why you're repeating the same thing again in light of the explanation provided, I don't know.

I'm not sure you know what lying is either.


No, you're not getting it. I post links to back up my claims. That's how it works.

Providing you with explanations and links to back up my claims hardly amounts to "dancing all around."

"Evolution is an accepted fact of reality by all major scientific institutions and organizations."


Did you hear that people?

This kid that has no background in science has just declared evolution a fact and you all must just accept it. Only he can't even tell us of the several theories of evolution out there which one he thinks is now a fact.

This is why I get so annoyed with twerps claiming to believe in evolution. They have no clue what the hell evolution is or that it is several theories and that it is unproven and just a theory and many theories of the origins of life on this planet that do not rely on evolution also exist.

This is the nonsense that hurts the evolution movement as it is always some kid like SkepticThinker that just wants to declare the science is concluded and everyone should just stop their research and accept their opinion as fact.

No SkepticThinker- evolution is still a theory (one of many) and not a fact!

 

[SkepticThinker]

If only you knew how hilarious your post is.

 

[fantome profane]

OK but that misses the point of the question:

Does Intelligent Design Require a God or Super Natural Being?

I was not proposing that Intelligent Design did not require or use some evolutionary process.

It just removes the idea that the intelligent designer is a God and that is the hang up many evolutionists have when they consider the Intelligent Design theory.

That opens up a discussion avenue for people from both sides of the debate to find common ground I believe.

The question misses the point. The point I am making is that if natural evolution is a sufficient and necessary explanation then there is no need to propose any form of intelligent design. No need for intelligent design and no evidence for intelligent design, no point to intelligent design.