Intelligent Design Theory

[jcrawford]

Everything in the natural world that can be explained is done so according to scientific theories of natural knowledge and intelligent design.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

Even the theory of evolution is a theory of intelligent design so by teaching evolutionary theory in public schools we are already teaching intelligent design in the classroom.

The teaching of Intelligent Design Theory in public high school science classes need make no reference to any theological claims in the curriculum since Natural Design Theory is based on human intelligence alone.

 

[UTEOTW]

His premise is that natural selection is unable to create what he calls complex specified information. Since there are many examples of nature doing just that, his premise is incorrect and therefore his conclusion is incorrect. See our information thread for a few such examples. It is currently the next one down or can be found at

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/21.html?

I think an even dozen examples of new complex specified information created through mutation and natural selection are listed. I can get others if needed.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I think an even dozen examples of new complex specified information created through mutation and natural selection are listed. I can get others if needed.

Complex specified information created through mutation or any other natural processes is a form of creation by intelligent design.

 

[UTEOTW]

What is the intelligence behind a mutation selected for by natural selection? Please explain that one to me!

If all you want is an agreement that God exists, sure. Of course I believe that. We all do here. But if this is supposed to be a reason that evolution could not happen, what is your point? Many IDers, such as Behe, accept common descent, including the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with the other apes, they just reject Darwinian evolution as an explanation. If you are YE, what do you think you gain by showing the evolution happened (and happens) but that God was actively directing it along the way. For that matter, why would you expect a theistic evolutionist to object to God stepping in if needed to push things in the right direction?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
What is the intelligence behind a mutation selected for by natural selection? Please explain that one to me!

Any selective process in nature based on the laws of natural physics must of necessity be an intelligent and orderly logical procedure in order for human beings to rationally comprehend it.

The observation of applicable intelligent laws of physics or design at work in nature needn't postulate the existence of any divinity in order to be comprehensively appreciated by scientists.

Evolutionist theory itself is intelligently designed.

As are most other scientific theories.

 

[UTEOTW]

So the point you are trying to make is...?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
So the point you are trying to make is...?

Evolutionist theory may be taught in US public high schools as part of an intelligently designed and highly creative science curriculum!

 

[UTEOTW]

Tell us what your theory is that you wish to teach.

Lay out the evidence for it.

Tell us what things it predicts and how it could be falsified.

So far you have just presented to us the unsupported assertions of another. Not any logical reason to teach ID.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
So far you have just presented to us the unsupported assertions of another. Not any logical reason to teach ID.

ID theory is already being taught in public schools in the form of evolutionary patterns and designs, is it not?

What's wrong with presenting the evolution of species as a form of intelligent creation and design?

After all, evolution is an intelligent and creative theory, isn't it?

 

[UTEOTW]

I am still not sure what you are prosing to teach.

You have arbitrarily designated all natural processes as intelligent processes. I am not quite sure where this assertion comes from.

It is almost like you are advocating some form of nature worship.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
It is almost like you are advocating some form of nature worship.

Evolution IS intelligently designed nature worship.

What's wrong with that?

Even the cosmos displays signs of intelligence, if only to the extent of some of the creatures which have evolved in it.

 

[UTEOTW]

Your idea is circular. You define all information, whatever that is, as requiring an intellignece behind it. Then when I show you mutations that lead to new information, you say See!, it really is intellignetly designed. Go read this.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/begging.htm

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Your idea is circular. You define all information, whatever that is, as requiring an intellignece behind it. Then when I show you mutations that lead to new information, you say See!, it really is intellignetly designed.

I don't see any tautology in recognizing the evidence of intelligence design at work in genetic mutations or natural selection since all living creatures seem to display some degree of intelligence.

If it takes intelligence to recognize creative evolutionary processes, it must follow that the process itself is intelligently designed and that all genetic information is created at some point in time.

 

[UTEOTW]

You are not avoiding the circular references.

There is no reason given to suppose that because intelligence is required to recognize a process, that such process must have been intellignetly designed. You are defining something to be a given way and then later declaring it to be that way because of the way you defined it. There is no derivation of the premise.

An example. One process I can measure is to go drop things off a building and measure how long it takes them to hit the ground. From this, I can calculate the acceration due to the process of gravity acting on a body. This takes intellignce to measure and calculate but are you saying that this makes gravity an intelligent process? That is silly.

But that is where your current statement is. You declare that only an intelligence can make "information." There is no step by step logic for this. When presented with an example of random mutations producing new information, you just say "Yep! Must be intellignce behind it." You give no logic. No reason. You just declare it to be so.

It is circular and unsupported.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
This takes intellignce to measure and calculate but are you saying that this makes gravity an intelligent process? That is silly.[QB]

An observer would look pretty silly if gravity acted on a random basis.

[qb]You declare that only an intelligence can make "information." There is no step by step logic for this.]qb]

It is self-evident.

[qb]When presented with an example of random mutations producing new information, you just say "Yep! Must be intellignce behind it." You give no logic. No reason. You just declare it to be so.[qb]

Well, you give no logic or reason for just declaring that all mutations are "random."

That too is circular reasoning and unsupported.

 

[UTEOTW]

There is nothing randon about gravity. That does not make it intelligent!

That it requires intelligence to make new genetic codes is not self evident. You must show this. You have the burden of proof in this case and you are not even attempting to meet it.

You are the one asserting the mutations are designed instead of random. Prove it.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
That it requires intelligence to make new genetic codes is not self evident. You must show this. You have the burden of proof in this case and you are not even attempting to meet it.
You are the one asserting the mutations are designed instead of random. Prove it.

Some things are perfectly obvious and self-evident to most people. The fact that our brains are capable of making intelligent observations and producing intelligent information serves to prove that some intelligently designed and naturally creative processes are responsible for our brains having come into existence in the first place.

 

[UTEOTW]

You are simply declaring yourself to be correct without any reason to suppose you are.

Things can be naturally creative without being intelligent. Go back to my example of mutations that produce new, useful proteins. Can you tell me how I could distinuish between a natural but unintellignet process and one that is actually intellignet? No you cannot. You simply declare it to be so.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Things can be naturally creative without being intelligent. Go back to my example of mutations that produce new, useful proteins. Can you tell me how I could distinuish between a natural but unintellignet process and one that is actually intellignet? No you cannot. You simply declare it to be so.

Well, you simply declare that "Things can be naturally creative without being intelligent." What evidence would you present to support that claim?

I fail to see how "mutations that produce new, useful proteins" could be void of intelligence if genes themselves contain intelligent information.

 

[UTEOTW]

You are the one making the assertion. You have the burden of proof. You cannot prove a negative. You have the positive assertion, you have the burden. YOu insist that it reflects intellignce. That is the positive assertion, that is the one that must be supported.

So tell me, how can I tell if a new mutation exhibits intelligence or not? THus far you are content to just assumethat it does.