''Intelligent Design''

That is a broad topic. It may be helpful to narrow your scope a wee bit.

 

It is an intriguing theory, but I don't think it is any more value the theory of evolution. Neither theory could serve to scientifically prove the origins of universe, because the fall has skewed all of creation. Therefore, we could not gather accurate data about the universe prior to the fall limiting our ability to analyze evidence of creation which was of course before the fall.

 

I find it interesting that we are so intent on looking for scientific evidence to prove the bible. God has told us not to lean on our understanding but every word of His.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with studying the topic. Just so long as we keep in mind that what God says outweighs any and all supposed "scientific" evidence.

 

Nearly every religion I have ever heard of has some belief on creation by their particular god. Which would be intelligent design. Now teaching intelligent design in schools does not teach that the God of the bible created. Seeing as how many religions have such a teaching, you could in reality, just pick one as creator for school class purposes. The 'designer' would depend on who the teacher is, and the family religion background of the student.

 

Here is some material that I posted on another forum relative to this topic:

I assume that most readers, even non-Christians, will admit that it is at least possible that an intelligent agent has "guided" evolution. More specifically, I think that there is nothing inconsistent about buying completely into the laws of physics and into the existence of an intelligent agent who "tinkers" with things, without in anyway fiddling with these laws.

To give a decent defence of such a view, one needs to find a "role" for the intelligent agent that does not "trump" the laws of physics. Could the element of "randomness" that we see in nature serve as the "slot" to insert an intelligent agent into our description of nature? I assume we will all agree that our laws of physics give a role to random chance - for example the outcome of certain quantum events are described in terms of probabilities - the laws of physics seem to have an element of randomness written into them at the most fundamental of levels.

Is it not at least plausible that an intelligent agent could "guide the dice-rolling"? Under this situation, the intelligent agent plays a role in the course of events while not violating the laws of physics. One could counter that such "tinkering" would be easily discerned by us - if such an agent were really at work, then the outcomes of these "random" events would not really be random and we would find this out. But what if the action of the agent were incredibly subtle, orchestrating the outcomes of what seem to us to be random events so that certain purposes are achieved?

 

First of all "bravo"! to Andre! That response is actually the most cogent so far and is "at least" in the right neighborhood for what is going on.

There are some facts that here that atheist darwinian evolutionists are trying to cloud for all mankind when it comes to the debate between ID and false relegion and pseudoscience we call Atheist Darwinian Evolutionism.

#1. Atheist's "want" you to think of this as a debate between evolutionism and creationism.

#2. Athiests want you to think that "belief" in Darwinian evolutionism by atheist devotees is "not religion" while anything that debunks atheist darwinian evolutionism "IS".

#3. Atheists "want" you to think that "you don't SEE ANYTHING" in nature other than "rocks falling in mud". Anything ELSE you see is just "the product of an incredibly unlikely sequence of chance interations and chemical reactions".


There are a number of "atheist wannabe" Christians who are cowed by atheist popularity in some circles - but their deer-in-the-headlights reaction to atheists should not be viewed as "scientific proof" of anything.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The facts.

In the case of the Dover trial - it is TWO EVOLUTIONISTS that are debating each other!

ONE (Michael Behe) is a Christian Evolutionist that accepts the "obvious" in natuer - that some things are "self evident" they are "CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" Romans 1.

So though as a true believer in evolutionism he clings to it - YET he makes room for some of God's fingerprints to be "admitted to" when they are seen in nature "clearly seen" and in fact "self evident".

#2. Atheist Darwininan evolutionists can not TOLERATE such an evolutionism that ALLOWS for ANY sign of intelligence in God!!

(And who can blame them - they are after all atheists).

#3. The Bible says that the ID principle is "SEEN CLEARLY" (Romans 1) EVEN by pagans - by those who REJECT God!

The bottom line is - IF there is going to be a Christian Evolutionist (if such a compromise is to infect Christianity) then may it AT LEAST be a compromise that does not insist on burning Romans 1!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Those Christian evolutionists that are in fact "Atheist wannabe" will of course object to this exposing of their methods and means - but they will NOT take a close look at Romans 1 to SHOW how they are accepting it!

 

In that case I'll accept your congratulations on my behalf and on those of my fellow theistic evolutionists.

 

My argument is that when a Christian who fully accepts the Genesis account is debating a so-called "Christian evolutionist" it CAN ONLY be a "theistic evolutionist" -- it could NEVER be a "Darwinian Evolutionist" Because the naturalism of Darwinian evolutionism IS PURE atheism in direct defiance of what is "CLEARLY SEEN IN NATURE" according to Romans 1 -- seen EVEN by pagans!

Debating with a Theistic Evolutionist is much more difficult because they have a far more defensible position that do the atheists and their "atheist wannabe" followers within Christianity.

Notice that When God says in Romans 1 that His invisible attributes are "CLEARLY SEEN in nature" BOTH the ATheist AND the Christian atheist-wannbe (Darwinian evolutionist) OBJECT strongly to the SAME points made in Romans 1.

Living proof of the argument

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/125/3.html#000037

 

First, I have been a theistic evolutionist all my adult life. It is not a big issue with me in that I would not debate it with anyone. I simply believe that God did create "in the beginning". There is a divine order and there is a natural order. Sometimes God intervenes for His own purposes, but in general allows the world to progress as it should. Man is slowly destroying the earth and atmosphere with his polluting ways, and God is not interfering with this. He is allowing it to progress to man's own damnation.

Intelligent design is just a modern label to establish that there is some other cause for creation and the universe than a big bang theory, and it may inlude God; a first cause.

Frankly, I wouldn't get too excited about the label.

Cheers,

Jim

This is the current definition for inteliggent design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

 

ID fits Theistic Evolution in that it make the key point that all things are NOT explained as the simple result of rocks falling in mud - in a godless environment (naturalism -- Darwinian Naturalist evolutionism).

Of course that minimalist claim could also fit Bible believing Creationism.

In fact if one reduces evolutionism to the milk-toast definition that evolutionists sometimes try to use (as in the case of the Dover trial) namely "things change" then that TOO fits Bible Creationism.

But in the case of ID it DOES contain the KEY point totally unnacceptable to atheists which is that SOMETHING INTELLIGENT was invovled in MAKING at least "some things" that we see in Nature.

And of course Darwinian Evolutionism makes the KEY claim that Christians CAN NOT accept which is that "ALL of nature is SEEN to be a NON-INTELLIGENT - Godless pointless system undirected by anything intelligent and totally accountable by rocks falling in mud".

What IS interesting about the trial is that it was declared "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" to admit to "seeing things CLEARLY from what WAS MADE" and unconstiutional that when looking at the complex MACHINES of nature one might notice that it reveals the intelligence of the one that MADE the MACHINES.

In other words ATHEISM was determined to be "CONSTITUTIONAL" and "SEEING something IN NATURE" that debunks atheist Darwinianism is "UNCONSTITUTIONAL".

By contrast it is "obvious" that the Christmas angels in my front yard were MADE - it is not "AGAINST SCIENCE" to see them as being MADE by someone. But the atheists would tell us that when we see far MORE complex machines in nature we are to regard them as "A highly unlikely sequence of chemical events" NOT as machines that were MADE.

Climbing mount improbably to discover you are on mount impossibly.


In Christ,

Bob