ID Intelligent Design Are you for it?

[BobRyan]

What are your thoughts on "Intelligent Design" that SHOWS that only God could have created what we see?

ID defined as the obvious fact that God's creation clearly shows the intelligent thought, planning and genius of God rather than simply a hodge-podge of natural events no more directed or "Designed" than is a glob of mud falling to the ground and creating a pattern in the dirt.

Natural selection relies on random variations in nature and the need to adapt to a changing environment -- as the "mechanism" for evolving the species. Like a bolder rolling down hill ... it "just happens".

Pablo Piccaso (by contrast to the rolling bolder that makes a furrow in the dirt as it tumbles downhill) - shows intelligent design in his art work - much like what we see when viewing the wings of a butterfly today, or when we study the almost infinitely complex structure of the cell, the eye or the ear etc.

Your thoughts?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Debby in Philly]

Well, gee. God is about as "intelligent" as it gets. But the term "intelligent design" allows for the old term "theistic evolution," meaning God designed it to work that way. Can't buy that.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
ID defined as the obvious fact that God's creation clearly shows the intelligent thought, planning and genius of God rather than simply a hodge-podge of natural events no more directed or "Designed" than is a glob of mud falling to the ground and creating a pattern in the dirt.

Do you mean that the natural laws that govern how a glob of mud falls to the ground are not designed by God? If so, I certainly disagree. All natural processes are both created by God and sustained by God. Just because something is natural does not mean God is not involved.

Also, the ID movement is quick to point out that the designer need not be God. I think the ID approach of trying to discover evidence of a designer without claiming to know much about the nature of the designer is foolhardy. We see footprints as evidence of a human being because we know what human feet look like. All scientific studies that detect design (even SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) do so by either knowing or assuming something about who or what caused the design. (For instance, SETI assumes that not only are the ETs intelligent, but that they're communicating at 1420 MHz, the spectral frequency of hydrogen, and that the signal will be focused on a narrow frequency band. Without making these assumptions, they would not have anything to look for.) ID claims that no such knowledge or assumptions are necessary, and because of that I don't think it's a valid science or a useful theological argument.

I have a further problem with many ID arguments that is harder to explain. Many times they seem to be using what they see as gaps in the design of our universe as evidence of design. Any time where they think the inherent design breaks down so that outside intervention was necessary to get it past a hurdle, they claim "design". Since I believe the Creator and Designer of the universe is the God of the Bible, the idea that we can best detect God's handiwork by trying to see where his design was insufficient does not appeal to me. IDs point to the missing pieces as evidence of a designer, while TEs see God in how well the pieces we presently know of fit together.

 

[BobRyan]

If an alien "dropped his watch" we would likely "NOT" get so confused as to say "hmmm maybe mud does that if you leave it alone long enough" just because "we don't know enough about the alien" that dropped his watch.

Often you hear the statement that an object that does not follow a purely ballistic trajectory but appears to be powered and to have the ability to navigate -- shows signs of "intelligence" guiding it rather than purely natural forces of gravity, air pressure etc.

It does not require "in depth knowledge of the pilot" before you see that.

If Picasso had a relative with equal or greater ability - it would not take indepth knowledge of his relative to distinguish between the intelligence of a 4th grader doodling and a brilliant but unknown artist.

The almost infinitely complex design of the eye, or ear or the ability to recognize objects and predict their motion... All massively complex highly engineered, brilliantly designed systems that mankind has yet to master, but if we ever do - it will "obviously" only be via a massive engineering effort! (beyond a DOUBT!)

So what does scripture say about the "obvious" ID component in Nature?

Romans 1
Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress
the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
2 For by it the men of old gained approval.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
...
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

This seems to be a huge problem for the evolutionist faithfully denying ID.

I would argue that the level of ID that Heb 11 and Romans 1 insists upon is totally contrary to Natural Selection as the "explanation for everything".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Deacon]

Access Research Network (ARN) provides information and discussion about the ID movement.

It can be rather rough in the discussion forums if you are a confrontational type. YEC's beware.

Rob

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

This is exactly my point, Bob. Creation doesn't just point to an ambiguous "intelligent designer" but rather to God who has specific attributes, eternal power and a divine nature. ID's refusal to say anything about the designer is what mutes the testimony of creation to its Creator.

 

[Helen]

Mercury, the intelligent design argument has nothing to do with the Designer, as strange as that may sound. That is not its purpose. Its purpose is to look at the evidence much the way a forensic scientist would do and ask "Has a design been committed here?" That's it. It holds up specific criteria to determine whether something is designed or not -- the same criteria we would use in looking at a building vs. a pile of rocks. The pile of rocks could come about by accident; the building could not.

As to who built that building, or who 'commited' that design, that is up to others. But ID does an excellent job of opening the door for Christians to explain the Who of the problem. ID does a pretty good job with the What. Because they limit themselves does not mean they are lacking in what they do.

 

[UTEOTW]

So how, specifically, would design in organisms be differentiated between that whic hacame about through natural means and that which was supernaturally imposed? Something concrete and testable?

It seems to me that much of the design in organisms is more haphazerd than you would expect for things that were intelligently and recently created. So much is cobbled together from spare parts with leftover bits scattered throughout. I mean, you can wiggle your ears or at least knows someone who can? You do know that whales have scores of pseudogenes for olfactory genes that only work in land dwelling animals, right? You do know about apoptosis, how certain parts are made or removed through cell death during delevopment, right? Like that human tail and those legs and feet on little snakes and dolphins. SOmetimes humans are even born with little atavistic tails or whales with little atavistic legs.

 

[billwald]

If IDers were honest they would support SETI but they don't and are not.

 

[Helen]

Here's an interesting article on this:

Mark Landsbaum
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/1221landsbaum21.html#

My Turn
Dec. 21, 2004 12:00 AM

Should intelligent design, the theory that life purposely was created, be taught in schools along with evolutionary theory, which says life accidentally evolved from lifeless chemicals?

Curiously, evolutionists say intelligent design isn't "scientific" enough. Yet it's Darwinian evolution that has never advanced beyond unproven theory, because facts don't support it.

If, as Charles Darwin claimed 145 years ago, all creatures evolved from lower life, the fossil record should be replete with remnants of billions of transitory life forms, such as the elusive "missing link" between humans and chimps. And not just that missing link. Billions of missing links necessarily must have existed for today's animals to have evolved if you accept evolutionary theory.

But the fossil record has no missing links. Where we should find countless transitional fossils, we find none. That's devastating for evolutionary theory. It's also not commonly taught in schools.

The lack of transitional fossils fits perfectly, however, with the idea that an intelligent designer, whom Christians call "God," created all creatures essentially in the form we see them today.

Even Darwin conceded this fatal flaw in his The Origin of the Species: " . . . why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

Darwin knew his theory contradicted science. "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science," he later wrote.

Yet schools teach Darwinian macro-evolution not as a half-baked theory lacking proof, but by force-feeding it to children as unquestionable fact. Meanwhile, intelligent design, which is entirely supported by the evidence, is forbidden in schools.

Everywhere we find life, we find it came from life. Nowhere have scientists ever found life spontaneously springing from non-living matter. Yet Darwinian evolution teaches that inanimate chemicals and passing time miraculously created living organisms. Mankind has never documented such nonsense.

But schoolchildren aren't even told that much because their instructors are wedded to Darwin's unproven theory. Indeed, Darwinism is a conviction adhered to even when flatly contradicted by obvious facts. Call it blind faith. But don't call it science.


Scientific method requires theories be explained by predictable, repeatable tests. Never has any portion of the evolutionary theory that mud gradually morphed into men been tested and proven.

Darwinian worshipers are too terrified to put evolution's theory alongside intelligent design and let people judge which is more plausible. The evidence overwhelmingly supports intelligent design.

Scientific theories should be accepted after observations and experiments, testing and results. Results must be repeatable. Quirks aren't evidence. But there aren't even quirks that support evolution. No portion of Darwinian's macro-evolution (one species emerging out of another) ever has been observed anywhere, passed any test, or been reproduced by scientists.

Why such resistance in light of the facts? To admit an intelligent designer means to admit God exists, and that we are not products of random accidents. But more to the point, it means Darwin's worshipers are wrong.


Evolutionary fundamentalists, who pattern their atheism after Darwin's, realize that to discard their belief in an unintentional cause and a purposelessness to life is to admit God exists, which is frightening for unbelievers.


The creation spoken of in the Bible comports perfectly with real-life evidence and science. There are no missing links.

Children should be taught the arguments for and against the theories of evolution and intelligent design. Let both sides make their best case, compare the evidence and let the scientific method do its work.

That beats giving children only one theory, especially if it's the implausible one. Teaching both theories is the right thing to do.

That brings us to the last nail in evolution's coffin: If life accidentally just "happened" and we're merely evolved apes, where do the concepts of right and wrong come from?

Darwin says we're reduced to survival of the fittest.

The intelligent designer said otherwise.


The writer, who lives in California, is a writer and an award-winning former Los Angeles Times staff writer whose work appears in secular and Christian publications.

 

[Helen]

Note: I do disagree with the claim that speciation does not occur. It does. But there is never shown to be any variation out of basic type.

 

[Helen]

then there's this one:

The Face Of Evolutionary Design
By Robert E. Meyer (12/22/04)
http://www.americandaily.com/article/6094

Evolution As A Religion

Recently I saw some news segments that featured debate on whether the teaching of Intelligent Design, should be curriculum taught along side of evolution in public school science classes. The individual taking the side of evolution was cornered at one point, regarding the origin of matter itself. He repeated the often heard mantra that the universe and corresponding matter composing it simply have always existed. What a classic example of "blind religious faith", I thought, particularly for someone who persists in characterizing the issue as science versus faith.

The first time that I heard the concept of evolution presented as a religion or philosophy, I snickered at the audacity of such a proposition. But the more I have taken notice of how the arguments are made, the more I see the religious aspects of the evolutionary position.

Let’s draw an imperfect, but illustrative analogy to the position of the atheist above. Suppose I come home from work one day noticing that my neighbor’s long grass has been cut. I say to my wife that my neighbor must have cut the grass with his lawnmower. My wife demurs, saying that the grass cut itself. Are these equivalently sufficient explanations as to how the lawn was cut? In one case we have a purposeful and intelligent agent, using a specific means to accomplish a goal. In the other case, you have an inanimate object acted upon itself without purpose. And notice that the explanation of the neighbor cutting the grass with his lawnmower is meaningful, without any discussion of where the neighbor, lawnmower or the grass came from. In like manner, saying that matter has always existed, is not an equivalent argument to saying that the universe was created by God.

Another canard employed in this debate, is that evolution is "scientific", whereas ID is religious mythology. But does evolution itself qualify as a scientific theory, or like Creationism, is it a metaphysical theory? Anyone who has taken an introductory class in the Philosophy of Science, knows a few basic tenets regarding scientific inquiry. First of all, only observational or naturalistic evidence is accepted. If the inquirer asks a how or why question, then develops a hypothesis, it must be testable, and thus subject to falsification before it can move beyond that point. In which respects can any evolutionary theory meet this test? The evolutionist who says that the "fact"of evolution proves the non-existence of God, must derive such information outside the parameters of empirical scientific methods-- a realm that he claims contains no meaningful truth. Thus, such a claim is that of religious dogmatism. Any masonry regardless of its ornate design or quality composition cannot be stacked four feet in mid air without a solid foundation. Those who claim evolutionary theories can do away with the need for God are attempting to do just that philosophically speaking.

There is also a question of evidence. No evidence is neutral in the sense that it requires no interpretations. Interpretations themselves depend on the assumptions of the interpreter. This, at least in part, accounts for discrepancies of opinion in those who say there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, and those who claim there are many. It seems curious though, that some evolutionists and non-theists, such as Stephen J. Gould and Francis Crick, were not comfortable with the classical Darwinian paradigm of gradual changes via natural selection. Both came up with theories of origin, which made the need for intermediate types a non factor. Why would that be expedient if it were not essential?

But there are logical dilemmas that must be accounted for in any cogent philosophical analysis of theory formation. In Gould’s model of "punctuated equilibrium", we see evolution happening in fits and starts, rather than more gradually. But if adaptations of the species by natural selection (survival of the fittest), to environmental changes, are the catalyst of classic Darwinian theory, what mechanism propels change in Gould’s paradigm? Imagine a group of engineers with the task of making motor vehicles more fuel efficient. They agree that by removing the engine, they will make the vehicle lighter and more aerodynamic, thus accomplishing the objective. But do you suppose that by closing the hood, they can hide the fact, or convince anyone, that the vehicle can be propelled with the energy source removed?

In Crick’s theory, we see the formation of intelligence on earth as a function of a more progression race from outer space (directed panspermia). But this assertion results in an infinite regress that does nothing to eliminate the need for God as the initial uncaused cause. How can Crick’s hypothesis be seen as anything more than a non-theistic version of blind religious faith? Here we see brilliant men willing to run a fool’s errand on a treadmill suspended over a quicksand pit. And for what reason–to rationalize away the existence of God?

Of course I will get many angry replies to what I have said so far. I will be told that I misrepresented these ideas; that I am an idiot; or that my ignorance is neglecting the details and the technical nomenclature of these propositions. And that is generally the way the argument is debated. Either you believe in evolution by default, or else there is no place for you at the table of credibility. There is no objective forum to convey honest skepticism without banishment.

We must also denounce the farce of objectivity. Science is supposed to take you where the evidence leads, and must have a patina of skepticism about it. Yet how many evolutionists are rooting for the universe to be a specific way, namely without an ultimate purpose or meaning. I have noted in previous editorials, statements by either Gould, professor Nagel, and Aldous Huxley, that are steeped in this sort of bias. That is religion and not science.

I don’t believe ID is necessarily science, in the way science has been defined in this piece. ID simply asks the question of whether the data can be best understood according to the presumption that the universe was generated through spontaneous creation. We ought to conduct an investigation to find out. Both evolution and ID are metaphysical theories. If academic freedom is paramount, where one treads, the other should be allowed to follow.

 

[The Galatian]

ID seems to have retreated from a claim to science, and is now focusing on religious and political objectives.

(Wedge Strategy paper)

My thinking is that they would be a lot better off spending the cash on research to find some evidence for their ideas, rather than for lobbying.

Basically, scientists don't give much thought to ID because it doesn't do anything useful for science. "Godmustadunnit" isn't going to produce any new knowledge.

And if it doesn't do anything, what good is it?

 

[Helen]

You obviously have no idea about the methods of goals of the ID movement, Galatian.

 

[The Galatian]

I've read the Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute. Mostly political and social goals. Do they spend any money at all on research?

If so, they've hit a string of dry holes, since nothing of consequence has been produced.

In fact, two of the three major objectives in the Discovery institute have nothing at all to do with scientific work at all.

They've dispaired as convincing scientists, and are now involved in lobbying governments to force their ideas on everyone else.

Won't work. They are trying to save the Titanic by lobbying the Oklahoma Legislature to outlaw sinking ships.

Would you like to see what is in their program?

 

[billwald]

If the ID movement was honest it would be interested in SETI and the possibility that life was seeded by space aliens. It is not.