Intelligent design

[arkain101]

I think there is some kind of intelligence behind reality.

 

There is alot of phenominas that give clues of non-random intelligence at work.

 

Snowflakes are a simple but good explanation of this. It has been shown that they form in around 10(-10) of a second when the electrical energy is fairly equal and balanced in the atomosphere they will form symetrical shapes instantaniously. Also, it is likely impossible to find any two alike. There is "intelligence" flowing in the atmosphere causing water atoms to form with cause and not randomness. When the electrical energy is unbalanced in the air, things like sleet, hail, or random snowball shaped flakes form. There appears to be some kind of low of intelligence of mathamatical precision that is all around earth that can be witnessed under the right circumstances. Crop circles (the non-hoax type) are starting to be explained as powerful plasma like energy that is controlled (shaped) by this same kind of energy intelligence that seems to exist with-in atoms and forms mathimatical shapes that mathematicians have claimed are in-tune math, like an instrument needs to be in tune to sound correct to the brain.

When ever this intelligence is let go or released atoms carry on their regular and random course. For example if you experience death, your corpse/body (your conciousness in form) will return to random matter state. Decay and molecular freedom will take course. Only when there is "life" or a conciousness with-in matter ( like plants and cells, dna) is it able to have cause and purpose and not function under randomness. This intelligence seems to exist all places.

[GAHD]

I woulsdn't call it intelligence, I'd call it sructure. The structure is caused by the way matter interacts with itself. I doubt there is any intelligence or consiousness involed in the process.

[cwes99_03]

Well now that arkain has weighed in i think this can be moved to strange claims. :hihi:

 

I believe this should not be in theology if trout will not admit that ID is based upon creation, sans the mention of God.

 

I don't think it belongs in strange claims, because it isn't some strange claim that someone new is putting forth, but something out in the mainstream.

[Boerseun]

We don't know who wins until, well, until they win.

Indeed. It's called "Evolution"...:hihi:

But seriously, it appears to me that all the ACLU has been able to do is insist repeatedly on its own authority that I.D. is not science (what a crock) and is religious (also a crock) while the DASB has been able to show in great detail, with real evidence and reason, why I.D. most certainly is scientific and is [/b]not[/b] religion.

 

Naturally, I'm hoping my assessment is correct.

Not only the ACLU, but for all practical purposes, every reputable istitution in the world. It's actually quite interesting, and I'll bet Hypo members from outside the States will concur; the ID debate is raging like wildfire, sure - but only within the US. Why would this be? There's no ID debate in the rest of the world. They've taken an objective look at it, and chucked it out the window, because it's simply not science - regardless of your personal faith or belief.

 

That also a crock, in your opinion?

[Boerseun]

Don't move this to Strange Claims, pleeze!

 

Imagine, if you do, then this thread will pop up on the right hand bar every time there's an update!

[TRoutMac]

I'm sorry. In my vocabulary, an "intelligent designer" capable of building reproducing molecules and seeding foreign planets is a god. Replace the word God by "intelligent designer" and my point still stands.

 

It seems to me that our subjective perception as to who the Intelligent Designer is has no relevance. We're dealing with facts here, not hunches, perceptions, feelings or suspicions. The fact is that Intelligent Design theory makes no attempt to identify the designer.

 

Now, again, unscientific doesn't mean wrong, it just means not science.

 

Now this is a startling admission. If, as you say, "unscientific" doesn't mean "wrong", then Intelligent Design might possibly be right despite the fact that you regard it as "unscientific". And if Intelligent Design might possibly be right, but science deems it not worthy of exploration, then science is not interested in pursuing right answers; but rather is only concerned with generating answers that are subjectively appealing, regardless of whether those answers are right or wrong. So, if "unscientific" doesn't mean "wrong", then science isn't what we have understood it to be.

 

No, science -- at least the ideal of science -- should pursue objective truth about our natural world, and should disregard what may or may not be subjectively appealing.

[TRoutMac]

I agree Erasmus00; and I might add an observation to the mix. This is the Theology forum and if this thread is not about, Websters definition; the study of God and of religious doctrines and matters of divinity' then I suggest it should be moved to the Strange Claims Forum. I think it's high time for a little honesty to manifest itself with regard to the question of intelligent design. For someone to insist that one can separate intelligent design from divinity is a little absurd. Let it be known, if you folks keep insisting that this is not about Theology then I'll ask the Administrator to move it to the Strange Claims Forum.

 

Infamous, I'd just like to point out that I'm not the one who originally placed a discussion of Intelligent Design in the Theology forum. Now, I actually would agree that it may not belong in the "Theology" forum, since we're not talking about the "study of God". We're talking about a theory of origins, and a very good one at that.

 

As to the issue of the identity of the Intelligent Designer: I think we would all agree that, in scienctific studies, our personal, subjective perceptions need to be "checked at the door" and should not be allowed to influence the outcome. To that end, the identity of the Intelligent Designer is not included in the Intelligent Design theory. This is not my subjective opinion, nor is it a "strange claim". Rather, it is a matter of record and is fact. You can "look it up", in other words.

 

So, if I may be so bold, if anything belongs in the "Strange Claims" forum, it is the claim that the Intelligent Design theory does identify the Intelligent Designer, as this is wholly unsupported by the facts.

[infamous]

Infamous, I'd just like to point out that I'm not the one who originally placed a discussion of Intelligent Design in the Theology forum. Now, I actually would agree that it may not belong in the "Theology" forum, since we're not talking about the "study of God". We're talking about a theory of origins, and a very good one at that.

For comments regarding this discussion to be germane to the issue, I'm asking that they include a Theological bases. This is BTW, the Theology Forum. And TRoutMac, thanks for being agreeable.

 

As to the issue of the identity of the Intelligent Designer:

That's why we call this The Theology Forum

 

So, if I may be so bold, if anything belongs in the "Strange Claims" forum, it is the claim that the Intelligent Design theory does identify the Intelligent Designer, as this is wholly unsupported by the facts.

Faith demands no support of facts, again, this is why we call this the Theology Forum. When you think you have facts that disagree with what contemporary science has to say, it then becomes a Strange Claim. So I must disagree with your position.

 

The originator of this thread may have chosen the wrong forum to debate these issues especially if he wanted to disassociate his position from a Theological stance. I therefore must acknowledge the point you made about the originators position on the subject, however, the larger question still remains. Does a discussion about ID while dismissing the identity of the designer belong in the Theology Forum. I suspect not.

[Biochemist]

...There's no ID debate in the rest of the world. They've taken an objective look at it, and chucked it out the window, because it's simply not science - regardless of your personal faith or belief.

Majority opinion is not science either.

 

To be "science", we generally assume that an hypothesis has testable, falsifiable predictions. ID probably does have some testable predictions (flavors of which were referenced early in this thread), although the proponents have not been prolific over the last decade in producing much academic support for the notion.

 

Do keep in mind that a body of thought does not have to be internally consistent to have a label. "Evolution" certainly is not internally consistent (e.g., gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium), but evolution still is a useful handle to describe a basket of ideas. ID is almost as diverse as evolution in terms of the disparity of thought within the proponents. Most IDers believe in most elements of evolution (most agree with natural selection punctuated equilibrium and genetic drift, for example). ID and evolution are about 80% consistent. Ergo, if you are "throwing out" ID, you are rejecting most of evolution as well.

 

I suspect the specific conflict is around speciation by mutation. Personally, as I have offered previously, I think the evidence for speciation by mutation is very weak. There is some evidence, but the quantity is so small that it is surprising that it has risen to become a fundamental tenet of evolution. I am nearly always accused of being a Creationist or an IDer if I point out that the support for speciation by mutation is weak. That type of response is not science either. It is just bias.

[Biochemist]

Now this is a startling admission. If, as you say, "unscientific" doesn't mean "wrong", then Intelligent Design might possibly be right despite the fact that you regard it as "unscientific".

If this is startling, we have not done a very good job of describing science.

 

We generally regard "science" as that body of knowledge that can be descirbed/circumscribed by the scientific method. Many areas of fact are not in this domain. Clearly (for example) God either is or He isn't. Niether fact is within the scientific domain. The scientific method does not bound truth, it only bounds science.

[pgrmdave]

The originator of this thread may have chosen the wrong forum to debate these issues especially if he wanted to disassociate his position from a Theological stance. I therefore must acknowledge the point you made about the originators position on the subject, however, the larger question still remains. Does a discussion about ID while dismissing the identity of the designer belong in the Theology Forum. I suspect not.

 

Then how do you explain the presence of the solar system? Unless you attribute it to intelligence, you claim that it couldn't be organized.

 

I attribute its organization to an intelligence, absolutely. Nothing inconsistent about my position.

 

Well, earlier in the discussion, TRoutMac did agree that everything must have been designed intelligently. Since that includes the entire universe, and since the according to Intelligent Design something cannot possibly organize itself, the designer must have come from outside the universe. So, the designer:

 

a) comes from outside the material universe

:hihi: designed everything within the material universe

 

Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions, but that sounds like a god to me.

[infamous]

Well, earlier in the discussion, TRoutMac did agree that everything must have been designed intelligently. Since that includes the entire universe, and since the according to Intelligent Design something cannot possibly organize itself, the designer must have come from outside the universe. So, the designer:

 

a) comes from outside the material universe

:hihi: designed everything within the material universe

 

Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions, but that sounds like a god to me.

Thank you pgrmdave, now we're getting back to a 'Theological argument'.

[Boerseun]

Is it possible to burn people here? Can I apply for a special "Burn Permit" here somewhere? Pleeeze - I need one. Tormod, ol' buddy ol' pal - where can I get my flame licence?

[questor]

it looks like we are going around in semantic circles here and always ending up at the word God, which immediately causes brain lock in most menbers. the odd thing to me is that no one here has defined what he means by the word God, so we may be talking apples and oranges. i ask again, does anyone here have a definition of the word God?

[TRoutMac]

So, the designer:

 

a) comes from outside the material universe

:hihi: designed everything within the material universe

 

Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions, but that sounds like a god to me.

 

It's hard to understand how I could be misunderstood on this point. Personally, I agree totally that the Intelligent Designer sounds an awful lot like God, and by that I mean God of the Bible. But so what? This is what's so important to grasp… that is just my personal subjective opinion and therefore it could conceivably be wrong. After all, there are some people who seem quite convinced that the "Intelligent Designer" is really aliens from another planet.

 

Now, I think that identifying the designer as such (aliens) has some serious flaws, but no matter, because the point is that the identity of the Intelligent Designer is not a foregone conclusion for everyone. That you may think the Intelligent Designer sounds like God is just your subjective opinion.

 

Intelligent Design proponents, particularly those who understand what the theory says and what it does not say, are respectful of the limits of science by virtue of the fact that they have purposefully excluded the question of identity from the hypothesis.

 

What's entertaining is that despite the fact that ID theory plainly avoids making any claim as to identity, the I.D. bashers criticize I.D. on the basis that there is no "test for God" and then they turn right around and insist, based on their own subjective perceptions, that the Intelligent Designer would have to be God.

 

It would appear that IDers have more respect for the limitations of the science than the ID bashers have.

[C1ay]

What's entertaining is that despite the fact that ID theory plainly avoids making any claim as to identity...

What's entertaing is that you've been asked several times to provide a testable prediction for design, not god, and so far you've not come up with one. Yet you argue it's just the same old argument that you've allegedly answered already yet, no where is this testable prediction you claim to have provided.

[TRoutMac]

When you think you have facts that disagree with what contemporary science has to say, it then becomes a Strange Claim. So I must disagree with your position.

 

I'm very sorry, Infamous, but as I said, the content of Intelligent Design theory is a matter of published record and, in fact does not identify the designer. This is not a matter of subjective opinion nor is it a "Strange Claim". Consider the following description of the Intelligent Design theory at Access Research Network:

 

Rather than trying to infer God’s existence or character from the natural world, [intelligent Design theory] simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."

 

And this from the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center:

 

Intelligent design is a scientific theory which holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

 

As I have said before, I have my own subjective opinion about who the designer is. But it is a subjective opinion and nothing more, so recognizing that, and recognizing that this is a "Science" forum, I don't make an issue out of my subjective opinions.

 

Dave's original question(s) which started this thread (in the "Theology" forum, for whatever reason) asked what predictions Intelligent Design has made and how do you go about testing it. I would guess that if there was an "official" topic of this rather lengthy discussion, that would have to be it and not "is God the Intelligent Designer?".

 

Granted, the discussions have ranged far and wide through various aspects of Intelligent Design theory and its validity, but I think that the majority of posts have been generally consistent with sorting out those key questions, even if the ID bashers remain unconvinced. (stubborn lot that they are! He, he!)

 

My point is simply this: There may indeed be better forums on Hypography for this particular thread given it's original topic. It seems entirely reasonable to move the thread to a forum within which that basic topic fits best, one that it perhaps should have been started in to begin with. But the "Strange Claims" forum seems like a very unfortunate and inappropriate forum for this topic to reside in.