The validity of intelligent design

[Ponder This]

The intelligent design debate has attracted lot of attention lately. Even after the kitzmiller v dover trial, it`s proponents still gain a significant popularity. I`m wondering what you all think of this secular version of creationism. What do you think about the future of intelligent design? Is it valid? Will it stay valid?

Science hasn't figured out what intelligence is yet (let me know when they do)... but DNA performs a process fundamental to learning: DNA remembers. If DNA forgot how to build people, we wouldn't be here.

The objection to Intelligent Design is lack of evidence that changes in DNA occur as part of a thinking process. How would Science even begin to test such a hypothesis?

If it can't be tested, then it can't be verified.
If it can't be verified, then it can't be accepted as Science.
If it can't be accepted as Science, then it shouldn't be taught as Science.

 

[osgart]

that's the beauty of science, and yet their are else ways of thinking than science that are worthy equals such as religion and philosophy, law, and government.

science shouldn't be throwing its weight around as the only useful practice.

I don't think science is infallible. it seems to manipulate reality very well indeed. but it's not necessarily explanatory in nature.

science can be maliciously abused. I enjoy science when it takes its rightful place and doesn't over step it's bounds.

 

[YmirGF]

Yep, (Un)Intelligent Design is a real great idea. It is easy to see why so many are flocking to it especially with all the ground breaking findings they have come up with. You read about it almost every day. No... wait... wrong topic. No discoveries have been made following the guidelines of Incompetent, err, Intelligent Design. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Notta....

 

[shawn001]

So, I have blue eyes, instead of dark eyes, because God did it?

Ciao

- viole

FYI

Blue-eyed humans have a single, common ancestor

Blue-eyed humans have a single, common ancestor

 

[shawn001]

Those who do ignore the possibility of a spiritual realm. Those who do, cant' explain the origin of the universe and the most logical explanation is we have an intelligent Designer who did it.

Our knowledge and reasoning is continuing to grow. I see no reason to doubt that these big questions will be answered as well. I'm not holding my breath, because I expect it to be a long time. But that's not the same as impossible by any means.
Tom

Since nothing can't be the source of something, either matter, energy and life or God must be eternal. Since order is very unlikely to come into being from disorder, I an going to go all in that God is the cause of the 3 things I mentioned.[/QUOTE]


What seems to us, to have order comes from disorder all the time. A supernova explodes and makes every atom of elements in your body. The solar system was in disorder till it became more orderly, according to us.

 

[shawn001]

The intelligent design debate has attracted lot of attention lately. Even after the kitzmiller v dover trial, it`s proponents still gain a significant popularity. I`m wondering what you all think of this secular version of creationism. What do you think about the future of intelligent design? Is it valid? Will it stay valid?

Intelligent design lost REALLY badly in the Dover trial. As mention, there isn't one fact involved, except for the fact they were purposely lying to change creationism into ID. Maybe with million of years or more of evolution, which is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory, ID might stumble on some science, like aliens did it. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

"
"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."

Intelligent Design on Trial — NOVA | PBS

EUGENIE C. SCOTT: The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default."

But when you ask them, "What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it?" It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument.

NARRATOR: Starting with Ken Miller, the plaintiffs walked Judge Jones through the conflict at the heart of this case.

Miller testified how Darwin's theory pictures the history of life as a tree, with species gradually evolving into others over millions of years, producing new branches and twigs, a process that gives rise to all the variety of life, from bacteria to Darwin's finches to ourselves.

But intelligent design takes a different view, as the movement's own literature shows. Intelligent design teaches a history of life in which organisms appear abruptly, are unrelated, and linked only by their designer.

NICK MATZKE: What's really being advocated is the idea that organisms poofed into existence through the miraculous act of an intelligent designer, i.e., God. That's the view that intelligent design promotes.


It's worth watching this on youtube.

Judgment Day Intelligent Design On Trial FULL (NOVA)

 

[Altfish]

It's almost impossible to score the desired result in one roll yes, that would be my point. playing Yahtzee, we know to retain each 6-insignificant on their own- and roll again so we can eventually create a usable score, we know to save small useless change in a coffee can and take it to the bank when it's full

And I think this is where some anthropomorphism creeps into evolution, the concept of saving for future pay-off is so intuitive to us, it's very difficult to remove it completely

But evolution, so the theory goes, cannot do this, it has no long term goals, it cannot save potentially useful parts for a future payoff.

Half an eye is worth exactly zero in this unguided model.

You obviously haven't read about the evolution of the eye or you would not say, "Half an eye is worth exactly zero in this unguided model."
A sixth of an eye gives advantages. Look at this simple diagram explaining it...
Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

 

[Nirvana]

Intelligent design lost REALLY badly in the Dover trial. As mention, there isn't one fact involved, except for the fact they were purposely lying to change creationism into ID. Maybe with million of years or more of evolution, which is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory, ID might stumble on some science, like aliens did it. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

"
"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."

Intelligent Design on Trial — NOVA | PBS

EUGENIE C. SCOTT: The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default."

But when you ask them, "What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it?" It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument.

NARRATOR: Starting with Ken Miller, the plaintiffs walked Judge Jones through the conflict at the heart of this case.

Miller testified how Darwin's theory pictures the history of life as a tree, with species gradually evolving into others over millions of years, producing new branches and twigs, a process that gives rise to all the variety of life, from bacteria to Darwin's finches to ourselves.

But intelligent design takes a different view, as the movement's own literature shows. Intelligent design teaches a history of life in which organisms appear abruptly, are unrelated, and linked only by their designer.

NICK MATZKE: What's really being advocated is the idea that organisms poofed into existence through the miraculous act of an intelligent designer, i.e., God. That's the view that intelligent design promotes.


It's worth watching this on youtube.

Judgment Day Intelligent Design On Trial FULL (NOVA)

I watched the whole documentary and yes, it`s wonderful. I watched Expelled yesterday and kinda enjoyed it, lol. It was funny. I dont know what these guys are doing after losing the trial. I mean maybe they`re trying to wrap Intelligent Design into something else and present it as a scientific alternative. I dont know whats wrong with Michael Behe, I mean he`s a professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh university, why is he so intent on destroying his reputation?

 

[shawn001]

I watched the whole documentary and yes, it`s wonderful. I watched Expelled yesterday and kinda enjoyed it, lol. It was funny. I dont know what these guys are doing after losing the trial. I mean maybe they`re trying to wrap Intelligent Design into something else and present it as a scientific alternative. I dont know whats wrong with Michael Behe, I mean he`s a professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh university, why is he so intent on destroying his reputation?

Michael Behe

"his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design.[5][6]"

Michael Behe - Wikipedia


He is in with the Discovery Institute!

The Wedge document.

"The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement."

Wedge strategy - Wikipedia

 

[omega2xx]

Since nothing can't be the source of something, either matter, energy and life or God must be eternal. Since order is very unlikely to come into being from disorder, I an going to go all in that God is the cause of the 3 things I mentioned.

What seems to us, to have order comes from disorder all the time. A supernova explodes and makes every atom of elements in your body. The solar system was in disorder till it became more orderly, according to us.[/QUOTE]

I think you are missing the point. WE have no evidence the universe was ever in disorder. If it was and now is not, it seems very unlikely that could happen by accident. Therefore God is the cause and order is the effect. During creation God declared what He did "good." When God finished His creation, He declared it very good.

Now if you are not a Christian I don't expect you to believe that, but since our universe is now orderly, you need to consider how it is possible without an omnipotent intelligent Designer.

 

[DavidFirth]

Yep, (Un)Intelligent Design is a real great idea. It is easy to see why so many are flocking to it especially with all the ground breaking findings they have come up with. You read about it almost every day. No... wait... wrong topic. No discoveries have been made following the guidelines of Incompetent, err, Intelligent Design. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Notta....

What are you flapping on about?

 

[Milton Platt]

Not necessarily. The proponents, in fact are distancing themselves from a ``supernatural`` creator. Michael behe for instance claims that the designer could be an extra-terrestrial. That`s why I called it secular, at least that`s what they call themselves

Then you want to address the hypothesis of Panspermia, rather than abiogenesis?

 

[Godless Ray]

The intelligent design debate has attracted lot of attention lately. Even after the kitzmiller v dover trial, it`s proponents still gain a significant popularity. I`m wondering what you all think of this secular version of creationism. What do you think about the future of intelligent design? Is it valid? Will it stay valid?

It simply has no validity. It's a backdoor attempt at getting Christian religion into primary schools.

 

[Grandliseur]

The intelligent design debate has attracted lot of attention lately. Even after the kitzmiller v dover trial, it`s proponents still gain a significant popularity. I`m wondering what you all think of this secular version of creationism. What do you think about the future of intelligent design? Is it valid? Will it stay valid?

As long as there are believers, the concept of ID shall exist.

The thing from a believer's perspective is this: if God fails to do anything within the next 40 years, scripture may loose its appeal in the kind of world we live in. However, in my worldview, we are in the last days, and the evidence is the rampant social violence, police violence, the theft by police of people's property without trial, the unceasing wars (terrorism is a kind of war too, it is the kind of war that groups with limited resources in people and money use), the threat of nuclear wars from Russia, China, N. Korea, Europe and the US. The rhetoric is nearly daily with Russia threaten to nuke the UK, Europe, and perhaps even the moon (funny I thought). Everybody is rearming themselves. The threats from NK include verbal threats of destroying the US and rockets that gradually improve in quality bringing our fear of war close to our hearts.

The Bible tells believers that when the nations become wrathful - that this is the time for the end to begin. So, as to ID, well, we are also told that the nations shall come together and attack religion. Clearly, if we are in the End Times, this shall happen soon. Religion shall be destroyed to try to get a handle on terrorism and the Middle East. Then the question of ID will become moot. Believers shall see the End Prophecies in action, and the nations shall next burn in WWIII.

 

[columbus]

However, in my worldview, we are in the last days, and the evidence is the rampant social violence, police violence, the theft by police of people's property without trial, the unceasing wars (terrorism is a kind of war too, it is the kind of war that groups with limited resources in people and money use), the threat of nuclear wars from Russia, China, N. Korea, Europe and the US.

Except that none of this is new. Aside from the many "advances" in weapons technology, this is all as old as humanity.
If anything, the advances in morality and communications technology are helping improve the human situation. At least people are more likely to recognize these evil tendencies and try to do something about them.
Tom

 

[jonathan180iq]

"Intelligent Design" is incredibly easy to expose as a fraudulent idea. It's nothing more than an attempt to supplant factual study with mythological desire...

The first assertion of ID is that complexity necessitates a designer... Going no further than that, you've already shot yourselves in the foot. How can an infinitely more complex being exist, having the ability to design Universes and people, without succumbing to the supposed first assertion?

"Who designed the Designer?"

Making an excuse for why your particular Designer is exempt from such a simple assertion doesn't help your case at all - it makes it weaker. If a Designer doesn't need to be designed, then nothing needs to be designed, completely negating your first assertion.

 

[TheMusicTheory]

As long as there are believers, the concept of ID shall exist.

The thing from a believer's perspective is this: if God fails to do anything within the next 40 years, scripture may loose its appeal in the kind of world we live in. However, in my worldview, we are in the last days, and the evidence is the rampant social violence, police violence, the theft by police of people's property without trial, the unceasing wars (terrorism is a kind of war too, it is the kind of war that groups with limited resources in people and money use), the threat of nuclear wars from Russia, China, N. Korea, Europe and the US. The rhetoric is nearly daily with Russia threaten to nuke the UK, Europe, and perhaps even the moon (funny I thought). Everybody is rearming themselves. The threats from NK include verbal threats of destroying the US and rockets that gradually improve in quality bringing our fear of war close to our hearts.

The Bible tells believers that when the nations become wrathful - that this is the time for the end to begin. So, as to ID, well, we are also told that the nations shall come together and attack religion. Clearly, if we are in the End Times, this shall happen soon. Religion shall be destroyed to try to get a handle on terrorism and the Middle East. Then the question of ID will become moot. Believers shall see the End Prophecies in action, and the nations shall next burn in WWIII.

This is just trying to cram world events to fit a narrative and completely ignores the multitude of other times in world history that the "nations were wrathful".

Europe essentially spent 1,000 years locked in a never-ending cycle of war alternately with themselves, the middle east and Asia from the middle ages into the late-romantic period. World War 1, the "War to End All Wars" was 100 years ago. World War 2, which was even bigger, was 80 years ago.

Social unrest? Tell that to the 1960s, or the pre-union workers revolts of the late 19th-and-early-20th centuries. Or the Women's Suffrage movements.

The world is *constantly* on the edge of war and destruction, and wracked with social unrest. It's been that way since ancient times, which is why its just so convenient for every generation of "believers" to say "but look! The prophecy of wrathful nations is coming true!". It's never NOT been "true". The "prophecy" is meaningless in real terms.

 

[Grandliseur]

Except that none of this is new.

Really! All the signs of the collapse of society as it happened in the past is here, but now it is global, not France, not Rome, not Russia. But, we all have our own opinions. It is not just war now, it is the pandemic violence and drugs, the social collapse.

 

[Grandliseur]

This is just trying to cram world events to fit a narrative and completely ignores the multitude of other times in world history that the "nations were wrathful".

Europe essentially spent 1,000 years locked in a never-ending cycle of war alternately with themselves, the middle east and Asia from the middle ages into the late-romantic period. World War 1, the "War to End All Wars" was 100 years ago. World War 2, which was even bigger, was 80 years ago.

Social unrest? Tell that to the 1960s, or the pre-union workers revolts of the late 19th-and-early-20th centuries. Or the Women's Suffrage movements.

The world is *constantly* on the edge of war and destruction, and wracked with social unrest. It's been that way since ancient times, which is why its just so convenient for every generation of "believers" to say "but look! The prophecy of wrathful nations is coming true!". It's never NOT been "true". The "prophecy" is meaningless in real terms.

If you think so, that is fine by me. However, when in the past did this achieve global levels and at the same time point to a near future when even atheist scientists say that our earth no longer shall be able to support humanity.

What I see now is the approaching WWIII. Unfortunately, it is not just my opinion, the Doomsday Clock is ever being put closer and closer to the next big bang. But, I am sure we shall all live to experience whatever is being cooked up by the powers that be.

 

[columbus]

Really! All the signs of the collapse of society as it happened in the past is here, but now it is global, not France, not Rome, not Russia. But, we all have our own opinions. It is not just war now, it is the pandemic violence and drugs, the social collapse.

Really!
T'was ever thus.

I honestly do think that the human race is on a trajectory towards disaster. Massive overpopulation, degradation of the biosphere, and increasingly lethal weapons will(IMHO) result in a cataclysmic end to civilization as we know it.
Nothing to do with god or scriptural prophecies or anything. Quite the contrary, religious beliefs about god are a huge impediment to saving the human race from human nature.

I think the road to Hell is paved with prophecies like "The Lord will Provide ".
Tom