Intelligent Design POLL

[questor]

Boersun quote:

''Intelligent Design makes claims that has to be taken on faith - that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for Life. The reason they make this claim is because of certain weaknesses in Evolutionary Theory. What they are basically saying is "There are some holes in your theory, and because of that, I am right". They do not have any proof at all, except for this. Their conclusion is a leap of faith, and therefore fails to satisfy the requirements for a scientifically sound theory. We should not be teaching ID in schools, because it is not science.''

is this what people think is the position of all those who believe in the possibility of ID? is it just about life and evolution? i find this to be a very

narrow and mistaken opinion as to what ID is all about. what about the billions of years before life appeared on earth? i agree that ID should not be taught as science because we do not know the truth. i also think people

dismiss obvious evidence of ID without serious thought about what is before their very eyes. while claims of auras and witch doctors miracle cures don't

pass the tests of full examination, some very obvious everyday phenomenae

point to ID. i have proposed these phenomenae as evidence of intelligent planning and i assume other posters merely want to argue about whether or not God exists. their minds cannot grasp the fact that the discussion is about intelligent creation of the universe billions of years before mankind even existed and invented his idea of God. this is a mental disconnect i do not understand. perhaps it would be better if Raccoon would define intelligent design.

[ughaibu]

Questor: You are human, intelligent design is as much a human creation as gods are.

[TheFaithfulStone]

is this what people think is the position of all those who believe in the possibility of ID

 

That's it exactly. You BELIEVE in the possibility of an intelligently designed universe.

 

I don't have any problem with people believing this, and I don't find it to be mutually exclusive with a belief in evolution.

 

The only "problem" with ID is the masquerade it's playing as legitimate science. It's perfectly valid philosophy.

 

TFS

[IDMclean]

Does it not intend to emperically prove it's self? Does that not make it a scientific theory? It states a hypothesis, it then observes measurements and emperical evidence. I may be mistaken here.

 

Is there documentation that I may regard ID? I can't play Devil's Advocate here, if I don't know what the Heck I'm talking about.

[Edella]

Intelligent Design makes claims that has to be taken on faith - that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for Life. The reason they make this claim is because of certain weaknesses in Evolutionary Theory. What they are basically saying is "There are some holes in your theory, and because of that, I am right". They do not have any proof at all, except for this. Their conclusion is a leap of faith, and therefore fails to satisfy the requirements for a scientifically sound theory.

...is this what people think is the position of all those who believe in the possibility of ID?

 

Certainly not all who support ID,but this seemed to be the position of the ID proponents in the Dover Case.We do hear a lot about the "impossibility" of a natural evolution from the ID camp: irreducible complexity,gaps in fossil records...as reasons for belief in ID.The reason the Discovery Institute exists is to promote ID as science,not just to promote ID.Of course whether ID should be taught in public schools as science and the possibility an intelligent designer are two different things.As TFS said,it's perfectly valid philosophy,but not science.If ID proponents simply wanted to promote the idea as philosophy,this would hardly be such a hot topic.

 

ID should not be taught as science because we do not know the truth.

ID should not be taught as science because it is not science.

 

Ed

[questor]

Ugh, here you go again. since you have great certainty there was no intelligence in the design of the universe, please explain to me the origin of:

1. gravity

2. the weak force

3. the strong force

4. the smallest particle

5. the life force

6. DNA

7. spin (atoms and electrons)

8. orbiting, the method of propulsion

9. order of the universe

10. relationship of the atoms that comprise life with the same elements present in inanimate objects. how do they differ?

11. the age of the universe

12. the deities worshipped by man and when they were invented .

 

get back to me as soon as you can.

[ughaibu]

Questor: When have I ever said "there was no intelligence in the design of the universe"?

Your post is irrelevant to the fact that intelligent design is a human idea. I'm not going to reply to a set of posts that avoid the issue and rehash stuff you've posted a dozen times, if you have something new to add, I'll be interested.

[HydrogenBond]

Intelligent design in the literal religious sense goes beyond the state of the art in science. Based on what we know now, it can not be proven with existing science.

 

If we look at intelligent design in a more scientific sense as evolution having a logical predefined order, it makes more sense than random or stupid (opposite of intelligent) design. For example, of all the exotic variety of sub-particles humans have found, manufactured or postulated, if we look around, they all end up as protons, electrons and neutrons. All that random variety is intelligently reduced into three simple things. This was already designed to happen right from the BB since these particles represent a final steady state. They are common all over the universe.

 

From these three particles the chemical state is defined. Chemicals also have intelligent order or design to them. One reacts H2 and O2 you get water, not a bunch of randon things that change everyday. Even in the center of the sun where oxygen and hydrogen are at 100M degrees, their future is already pre-defined when we cool them to ambient conditions.

 

If we had stupid design at work in the universe, there would be hundreds or millions of stable sub-atomic particles capable of infinite chemical pertubations which never seem to reach any sense of order. With stupid design it would be nearly impossible for life to form. With intelligent design the next step into life is a logical consequence of specific conditions and chemicals which are already predefined. If the conditions are correct it will happen.

 

The basic unit of life or the cell is an intelligent design template. It is not coincidental that all life is based on the same template. We do not have a hundred different versions of cell wanabee's. It is like water, the template is predefined, waiting for the correct conditions to appear. Once the cell does appear, variety is possible but all will be cells.

 

The brain is another example of stupid design reduced to one. As far as I know, no animal thinks with its feet or hair. With stupid design that may be a possiblity since even the subparticles can't make up their minds.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Questor, I don't make any claims as to the "truth" of intelligent design. That's an argument about the existence of God.

 

I'm making claims as to it's scientific legibility. As a scientific theory, it's bogus. (That's a period.)

 

As to it's "truth." I don't know.

 

Seriously though, the experiment you need to be able to do is to contact the intelligent designer and ask him if he (or she) intelligently designed the universe and everything in it.

 

Since that ain't gonna happen - ID ain't science.

 

It's not it's CLAIMS that are dispute, it's the METHODOLOGY. There is no Intelligent Design experiment that is repeatable. It makes NO testable predictions.

 

What does Intelligent Design PREDICT? That's a simpler question than explaining the meaning of life the universe and everything, but I suspect you can't answer it within the intellectual framework of Intelligent Design.

 

You are however, perfectly free to believe that the universe is so complex and weird and perfect and simple that it must have been design by "God." This is not an absurd belief. But neither is it a scientific one.

 

TFS

[IDMclean]

Even in ID god did not design himself, and I will point out once again if in Definition we define God as the Universe, then the universe can logically have designed everything else. Creation, creator. Just my opinion on it.

 

It's all rhetorical really, you have to agree on so many terms.

[questor]

Ugh, your answer is as expected. it shows a total lack of understanding on

my position and the questions i asked.

i don't know of anyone on the site who has said that ID is scientific or has been proved. that is why it shouldn't be taught as science. evolution has many holes, so perhaps it should be thought of as a theory. for instance;

why did certain animals develop wings? you might say to avoid predators. why did not all prey animals then develop wings? evolution advocates seem to imply evolution upon demand. any unique body part was developed because the animal would find it useful. that makes no sense to me. evolution

should not be taught as science because it does not fulfill scientific requirements. truth means certainty and some day we will know the truth. at that time all rational people will have to agree. we only have arguments when the truth is not known. you don't have to take a poll when one knows truth.

[ughaibu]

Okay, thanks. So you agree that intelligent design is a mental construct of human beings, based in the imagination. As there are no known examples of intelligently designing creators or instances of creation by intelligent design, the probability of intelligently designed creation being the correct explanation is no greater than the probability of any other explanation that is based on imagination. As there is an infinite number of possible explanations that can be imagined, you will agree that creation by intelligent design is infinitely improbable as the correct explanation.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Ugh, your answer is as expected. it shows a total lack of understanding on

my position and the questions i asked.

 

You should seriously stop starting all your posts with "ugh"

 

It's condescending.

 

I don't think it's incumbent upon me to "prove" to you a theory that is accepted by millions of scientists around the world because you don't understand it. There are gaps in our knowledge sure, but your assertion that evolution implies "evolution on demand" is absurd.

 

We can (fairly) clearly trace the evolution of avian wings for example in the fossil record.

 

TFS

[Pyrotex]

... There are gaps in our knowledge sure, but your assertion that evolution implies "evolution on demand" is absurd...

There are "gaps" in our understanding of gravity. So go take a flying leap off the edge of the Grand Canyon. There's no danger, surely, because we really don't understand everything about gravity. :)

 

Seriously folks, The Theory of Biological Evolution is a successful theorem and a stalwart of modern science because it DOES answer so many questions that previously had no answers at all. There are numerous books out there written at a college freshman level that could clear up a lot of your criticism.

 

For example, evolution implies "evolution on demand" -- really?

 

In Richard Dawkin's "Climbing Mount Improbable" he describes what I think he calls a Fitness Map. The map takes place in Genome Space, is abstract, and contains a vast number of dimensions, but it helps to think of it as a 3-dimensional topological map. X and Y are the axes of two genomes (selected from many thousands!) and Z is the "altitude" showing environmental fitness for a specific selection of X&Y Genome combination, and a specific external environment at time T.

 

The way evolution works, you find that successful critters cluster around the "peaks" in the Fitness Map. Small mutations that take a critter higher up a local peak, makes the critter fitter. Large mutations are more likely to take a critter further away from a local peak and therefore doom the critter. So, successful evolution tends (I stress the word tends) to move critters up local peaks, or up the gentle slopes to higher peaks that may be "near" in the Map.

 

A critter finds itself stuck at the top of a peak. What to do? There may be a slope leading "up" but only in ONE direction, say longer legs. The critter is not placed in a location of Genome Space, where a mutation is gonna produce something like a wing or flapping thing. Or perhaps a mutation might, but it would lead "downhill". So, if the critter mutates, it leads only in those dimensions permissible by the critter's current Genome, and only in directions that lead "uphill".

 

Conditions change and environments do too. So, a stuck critter on a local peak may eventually find the topology shift under it, creating a slope where there was none before. The critter, if lucky to have a good mutation or two, will tend to climb up the slope, becoming ever fitter for its new (evolving) environment.

 

No critter just grows wings, bang! Wings aren't created on demand. A critter may have grown something to fan food its way, or a modified leg that propelled it across the water, while its other legs supported it. The modified leg may later be "adapted" for higher speed and then for jumping, guiding, even flying. A related critter almost the same, may be in the wrong place of the Fitfness Map at the wrong time, and have a Genome that is just slightly wrong, in the sense that no evolution of its limbs will ever become a wing, or will take it "uphill" on the Fitness Map.

 

Life is hard. It's a crapshoot out there. The opportunity to grow a wing-like structure that enhances fitness is NOT available to ALL lifeforms ALL the time! In the history of dinosaurs, it happened perhaps once, and then it was gone, baby! Those that were well placed on the Fitness Map, took it and ran. Those that weren't, well, mostly died.

 

Tinier critter, like bugs and such, with their simpler bodies, simpler Genomes, and fewer physical restrictions, may have encountered this "wing" opportunity many times. Those whom it immediately made more fit, survived. Those for whom it made no "upward" difference found themselves with a negative mutation that killed them off.

 

Now--this explanation, though simple, offers detailed explanations on how and why evolution works. And works for one critter and against another at different times and in different places within the Fitness Map. It's an explanation with "explaining power" and elegance. No other "theory" of Life comes even close to this power.

[IDMclean]

There are "gaps" in our understanding of gravity

 

No longer true, mano. I can descirbe Gravity Via Quantum Mechanics and GR. Check it out: Unified Field Theory

[questor]

infinite now, since UGH has chosen this name himself and has not complained,

why do you consider it is your business to tell others what to do?

i do not yet see a reason to refute evolution upon demand as the most frequent answer given for development of unique appendages. some other examples:

tortoise shells, woodpecker bills, long legs on storks, squid ink, human brain size, ad infinitum. how did animals and other life forms just happen to develop

protective and enabling apppendages which totally differentiates them from other similar sized animals if we all descended from the original single cell, and were lhe same environment?

[Pyrotex]

...if we all descended from the original single cell, and were lhe same environment?

That is a very brash and unfounded assumption. The Earth does not now nor likely ever had just ONE heterogenous environment. The variability of descent and development is quite largely dependent on environment and environmental change.

 

This should be obvious.