Intelligent Design???

[shunyadragon]

Some Christian scientists assert that scientific methods can demonstrate Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, and Specified Complexity to show that an intelligent 'Source' such as God is necessary for the existence of the Universe, and the beginning and evolution of life. The Discovery Institute has spent millions devoted to their efforts mostly donated by churches such as the Seventh Day Adventists, to do research on this hypothesis.

The reality is there has not been any objective verified evidence presented to falsify hypothesis to support Intelligent. What many have done is misuse and abuse statistics and probability to justify Intelligent Design.

Some members of this forum have proposed that Intelligent Design is science. I am waiting for the proposal of a hypothesis that may be falsified by scientific methods to demonstrate this.

 

[osgart]

I am actually interested in the correct statistical analysis and probabilities info on this topic.

Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics

It would be far more interesting to tackle the problem then to debate religious ideologies as a way of dismissing intelligent causation.

 

[Ellen Brown]

The problem with the term "Intelligent Design" is that both sides lie about what it is supposed to mean, so I try to avoid using it. I think that some of those against ID are actually just trying to start a fight, and some radical Christians make themselves easy targets.

 

[Bear Wild]

The problem with the term "Intelligent Design" is that both sides lie about what it is supposed to mean, so I try to avoid using it. I think that some of those against ID are actually just trying to start a fight, and some radical Christians make themselves easy targets.

So what does Intelligent design mean? In the past it has been used as an argument against evolution but if it has a different meaning than that should be clearly made. I do not think I have been lying my understanding but I am open for a clearer interpretation.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am actually interested in the correct statistical analysis and probabilities info on this topic.

Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics

It would be far more interesting to tackle the problem then to debate religious ideologies as a way of dismissing intelligent causation.

Actually this is a good reference addressing the problem of trying to use probability and statistics to justify intelligent design, and negate the Laws of Nature and natural processes as the cause on natural phenomenon such as the origin and evolution of life. I will also provide references, but in general statistics and probability are best used in research in testing the experimental design of hypothesis and some theorems that can be carried out under controlled conditions in experiments.

I avoid religious ideologies, but nonetheless they are the basis for arguing for Intelligent Design as proposed by the scientists and others at the Discovery Institute.

 

[shunyadragon]

So what does Intelligent design mean? In the past it has been used as an argument against evolution but if it has a different meaning than that should be clearly made. I do not think I have been lying my understanding but I am open for a clearer interpretation.

As far as this thread goes the following is the definition:

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=int...1.69i57j0l5.8402j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

in·tel·li·gent de·sign - noun - the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.


The problem from the beginning with this definition and argument is that science does not consider the possibility that 'Chance' or randomness can cause anything, and at best it may be considered a layman's view of the observed variability of cause and effect outcomes. Actually the variability of of natural cause and effect outcomes is observed to be fractal, based on Chaos Theory, and in and of itself it cannot cause anything either. The Laws of Nature are considered the cause of the outcomes of cause and effect events.

Another more detailed definition:

From: https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/
The Definition of Intelligent Design

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

 

[Ellen Brown]

So what does Intelligent design mean? In the past it has been used as an argument against evolution but if it has a different meaning than that should be clearly made. I do not think I have been lying my understanding but I am open for a clearer interpretation.

I have no clue. I don't practice that there is any separation at all betweek Evolution and ID. Those who want to fight about it will, or find something else to fight about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what does Intelligent design mean? In the past it has been used as an argument against evolution but if it has a different meaning than that should be clearly made. I do not think I have been lying my understanding but I am open for a clearer interpretation.

Like many non-scientific ideas there is no set definition. Some, such as Behe and Dembski, accept the fact of common descent and seem to have the belief that "Live evolved, but God done did it." Others, such as the Discover a Toot, mean creationism when they say intelligent design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as this thread goes the following is the definition:

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=int...1.69i57j0l5.8402j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

in·tel·li·gent de·sign - noun - the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

And the word "chance" is often used to strawman the theory of evolution as shown by the various "odds arguments" used by some. They start with a false version of evolution and then show that it is mathematically impossible. I have never had to refute the math in any of those arguments. They fall apart when the strawman is exposed.

 

[Bear Wild]

I have no clue. I don't practice that there is any separation at all betweek Evolution and ID. Those who want to fight about it will, or find something else to fight about.

So what is the intelligent design that you consider exists. The theory of evolution does not propose an intelligent design as a part of its theory which is were most of the debate occurs but I would be interested in how you connect the two.

 

[Bear Wild]

Like many non-scientific ideas there is no set definition. Some, such as Behe and Dembski, accept the fact of common descent and seem to have the belief that "Live evolved, but God done did it." Others, such as the Discover a Toot, mean creationism when they say intelligent design.

I know some pantheists, which I have considered myself, who see the natural forces as the representation of god which is everything. In this way the progression of life on the earth is a creative force heading towards more complexity. This is however different than an outside intelligent agent directing everything.

 

[osgart]

Imo / Given an infinite amount of occurences specific complexity is certain to happen in nature. Specific function from complexity or specific function from simplicity makes me consider an intelligent cause to evolution, but certainly pre planned design couldnt possibly be at work.

The crudeness and wide variation of life and its brutal circumstances in nature seems to convince people that an unguided process is responsible.

 

[Ellen Brown]

So what is the intelligent design that you consider exists. The theory of evolution does not propose an intelligent design as a part of its theory which is were most of the debate occurs but I would be interested in how you connect the two.

I'm stubborn and snotty about this, but do not mean to be unkind. I come from an uber conservative background that trashed people a lot, and I threw all that crap out. These days, I think what I think and if someone else has another thought, it does not impact me.

I think that evidence of an intelligent Creator is conclusive, and not open to debate. It is religiophiles that made a religion out of it without his participation. It seems plain to me that the progression and development of life was done with purpose, and may have altered along the way. That someone was managing it seems inarguable to me. It seems to me that what is around us obeys logical physical laws and the laws of Physics, most of which are not understood.

As to pleasing the Creator, and being punished by him, I'm going to try to please him in all that I do, and want to avoid punishment. I think that the Bible is true within the limits of our understanding of it. I've often been hurt and rejected by the religious and don't trust them at all, no not one bit. So many of the religious have said they love me, only to show that they are liars later. Humans are awful and I hope to avoid being that way.

Evolution seems like a good explanation but we are continually altering our understanding of it. We should be altering our understanding of Religion but that does not appear to be happening.

 

[Altfish]

The problem with the term "Intelligent Design" is that both sides lie about what it is supposed to mean, so I try to avoid using it. I think that some of those against ID are actually just trying to start a fight, and some radical Christians make themselves easy targets.

IIRC wasn't the term coined when some US states banned the teaching of Creationism in schools. As usual, religious folks were deceitful and invented a new term to get their dogma back into schools. It was shown up for what it was in the Dover Trial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm stubborn and snotty about this, but do not mean to be unkind. I come from an uber conservative background that trashed people a lot, and I threw all that crap out. These days, I think what I think and if someone else has another thought, it does not impact me.

I think that evidence of an intelligent Creator is conclusive, and not open to debate. It is religiophiles that made a religion out of it without his participation. It seems plain to me that the progression and development of life was done with purpose, and may have altered along the way. That someone was managing it seems inarguable to me. It seems to me that what is around us obeys logical physical laws and the laws of Physics, most of which are not understood.

As to pleasing the Creator, and being punished by him, I'm going to try to please him in all that I do, and want to avoid punishment. I think that the Bible is true within the limits of our understanding of it. I've often been hurt and rejected by the religious and don't trust them at all, no not one bit. So many of the religious have said they love me, only to show that they are liars later. Humans are awful and I hope to avoid being that way.

Evolution seems like a good explanation but we are continually altering our understanding of it. We should be altering our understanding of Religion but that does not appear to be happening.

what specific evidence do you think that there is for an intelligent creator? I have heard this claim befor, but at best the person making the claim was shown to not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Altfish]

I think that evidence of an intelligent Creator is conclusive, and not open to debate. .

There is a Nobel Prize waiting for you and all the fame and fortune of a famous rock star if you write that down and lay out the evidence.

 

[Ellen Brown]

what specific evidence do you think that there is for an intelligent creator? I have heard this claim befor, but at best the person making the claim was shown to not understand the concept of evidence.

Don't you dare try to put me in a corner. Better men than you have tried. It is my opinion and I am entitled to it, and that is all I need full stop !

You folk who believe in nothing are welcome to your views.

 

[Ellen Brown]

There is a Nobel Prize waiting for you and all the fame and fortune of a famous rock star if you write that down and lay out the evidence.

You can take your superiority and bugger off.

 

[Skwim]

The Definition of Intelligent Design
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

I think it's important that the paragraph that follows the statement above is noted:

Is Intelligent Design Creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.​

As anyone familiar with the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial can tell you, this is a flat out lie. ID is creationism. (See Of Pandas and People ) And when one takes the Wedge Strategy into account it's obvious what the motive and aims of the Discovery Institute are. See HERE. Enunciated in the Wedge Document, this document is described as follows:

The Wedge Document is a publication of the Discovery Institute which outlines their goal to bring the "controversy" over "evolution" versus "intelligent design" into the public arena, in a way politically contrived to get less informed members of the public to side with the idea of "teach both sides" (one side being "science", the other religion). It is the smoking gun that demonstrates that "intelligent design" is "creationism" in a thin disguise. The full text of the document can be found at Text of The Wedge Strategy.​

For those unaware, the Discovery Institute invented that name "intelligent design" to rebrand creationism.

For those interested on how ID and its movement came to be see HERE

.

 

[Altfish]

You can take your superiority and bugger off.

A calm and considered response.
Asking for evidence = superiority in your universe.