ID Intelligent Design Are you for it?

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

Here's an interesting article on this:

 

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.

 

then there's this one:

 

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?

 

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

 

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.