dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
What is the basic premise for ID? Is there any evidence for it; if so, what? Is said evidence logical, and does it follow the scientific method?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Intelligent design?
- Thread starter dyanaprajna2011
- Start date
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Yeah, but I'm wanting to let proponents of ID make their case.
First, I think the OP should include a definition of what ID is as that is never clear at all to me. I like to discuss this but I always get frustrated.
ID is the name given by a Christian group and it has stuck.
I believe in intelligent design if the words are taken by their simple meaning in that life and evolution is fostered by higher beings (nature spirits) that work with the elements of earth.
Last edited:
Do you know what these ID people DO believe happens in the formation of life and evolution? All I ever hear talked about is what they DON'T believe in.
They are certainly more scientific than Young Earth Creationists if I understand correctly. I don't think they claim things happen with a sudden 'poof'=goddidit.
Last edited:
That an intelligence created the complexity we see but I see it more as a sort of guiding force.
It is probably next to impossible to prove or disprove an invisible guiding force. IMO life is evidence of at least some sort of guiding force but intelligent may be a strong word for that.
We understand that all matter is animate at the micro level. Somehow this animation turns into single celled critters that appear to have a purpose, life striving for something and it takes off from there. That underlying purpose driven life at fundamental levels does have a hint of direction and therefore intelligence.
Intelligent design is all well and good from a deism standpoint if one believes that a God created the universe and intricate laws and rules for nature to follow, then stepped away. That's more tenable than what ID really is... veiled Christian creationism.
ID won't rule out the possibility of God's creation and intervention.
ID won't rule out the possibility of other driving forces than the so-called "natural selection".
ToE on the other hand assumes that they already know all kind of driving force and to conclude that "natural selection" is the only driving force for the development of all living organisms.
What left is the question that if God does exist and He manually made a finished product out of the millions evolved from a single cell, then can you distinguish this single species from those millions evolved from a single cell ?
If God made several species 2 millions years ago, then allow these species to continued to be developed (evolved) by the natural driving force, can you distinguish these several species from others.
Now here's the most critical question,
If God created most of the species 1 billion years ago then allow these species to continue to be developed (evolved) by the natural driving force, can you tell the difference that if they are made in the first place or if they were developed from a single cell ?
ID is not to rule out those possibilities.
Strictly speaking, nothing is scientific here, whether it's ID or ToE as human by far are not capable of reproducing the process to observe how a, say cat, is developed from a single cell.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"NEIL SHUBIN: Darwin didn't even know about molecular biology and DNA, yet that's where some of the most profound evidence is being uncovered today. Think about that. That somebody in the 1800s made predictions that are being confirmed in molecular biology labs today. That's a very profound statement of a very successful theory.
KENNETH R. MILLER: Not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution. Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of contentious testing is a pretty darn good theory, and that's what evolution is."
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial
However, the established scientific consensus is that Young Earth Creationism has no scientific basis. For example, a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
Newton's law of universal gravitation postulates that the gravitational force of two bodies of mass is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
If you find proof that god helps that too, let us know.. Intelligent falling and all that...
Then find something.. ANYTHING via experimentation, the scientific method, and non-biased research that supports that.. anything at all, to back up what is ONLY speculation on your part, and let us see it.
ToE is stated in specific terms.. find any evidence contrary to those terms, and force the ToE to adapt, or disappear.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Evolution is wrong because science is hard therefore god did it.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
It hasn't really changed much over time, the idea is still basically the same as Paley expresses in his Natural Theology, in his (in)famous "watchmaker" analogy-
". . . when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive. . . that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. . . . the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker -- that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use."
Of course, the idea was hardly new to Paley; the teleological or design argument has been around since at least Plato (who saw that it was terrible 2500 years ago). If the argument was ever credible at all, that ended with Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (an absolutely brilliant, concise, and delightful book) although subsequent work on induction and probability, the role of falsification in science, and other areas shed some light on it as well.
It certainly looks that way when we read so many of the posts defending ID by attacking evolution, ie,they simply don't understand it. But fundamentally, even the creationisnts/IDers with a strong science education don't apply the scientific method to their own "theory". The utter lack of any experiment which could test predictions (ie, falsify the hypothesis) keeps it out of the realm of science.
Some good has come from their challenges to the TOE. We see very interesting counter examples to the irreducible complexity argument, eg, the evolution of eyes.
Last edited: