what good is Intelligent Design?

Using this as a foothold? Please explain...I am not sure I understand what you mean.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Irreducible complexity simply states that there are biological systems that are too complex to have evolved in one step. If any of the systems integral components are missing, the system as a whole is useless, therefor it confers no advantage to a species by which to allow 'natural selection' to operate. This is an interesting argument in my mind, others may not think so. But there must be a leap made from 'was there a designer' to 'did this designer communicate with His creation?' Many of the ID guys seem unwilling to make this leap. But it is good to see that people who are not overtly religious are noticing that the emperor may not be fully clothed.

 

I like the concept. I think it's solid.

 

Yeah, what he said up there!

 

Intelligent design doesn't name who the designer is, and it could be the god of anyone's religion, or an as of yet unknown, unknown formed religion.

 

If you're truly interested in ID I would recommend studying Michael Behe and some of his works.

 

Computers don't just know this information relating to chemical reactions in the human body. They are only working on a pre-set series of rules/boundries that they were pre-programmed with. I can make a computer do anything I want. So just because they spit out information, doesn't mean that it isn't flawed. I can program a computer with all of my body's functions & allergic reactions, etc., and I could tell it that everytime I drink a RedBull that I sprout cute little wings & fly away and as far as the computer knows, that is all scientific fact.

 

computers are programmed. The programs are the results of intelligent (presumably) design. Therefore using a computer program to try to disprove intelligent design is an exercise in the ridiculous.

 

In our public schools we should teach the general theory of evolution and the nature of the data that supports that theory. There is no good scientific data that refutes the theory of evolution. Some cracked-pot so-called scientists, however, who believe the purpose of Science is to prove their personal, woefully inadequate and grossly ignorant interpretation of Genesis 1-11, have managed to deceive the simple into believing their nonsense.

In our churches we should teach the Bible in the light of the knowledge that God, by his grace, has allowed us to learn.

 

It beats lunatic design. hands down.

[ March 07, 2006, 06:52 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

A good suggestion. A little while ago, Dr. Behe explained his views as part of the Dover trial in Pennsylvania. During his testimony, he was presented with this quote from the National Academy of Sciences:

"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving the physical and biological evolution, and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed "theistic evolution," is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution."

Dr. Behe contrasted this view with his own view. "As a matter of fact I'm claiming quite less than what the National Academy says is consistent with scientific explanations of evolution, that is that God created, the universe, and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution. In this section I'm actually contrasting my view to those who argue for design saying that they think that the universe and its laws were designed. I'm saying that in fact a design that I'm proposing actually is a, is something that would require perhaps less of an ability of a designer."

It's page 82 of his October 19 PM testimony, if you want to check it out.

Anyway, on this I agree with him wholeheartedly. Intelligent design, as Dr. Behe sees it, requires quite a bit less of the unnamed designer than theistic evolution attributes to God. It's "quite less than what the National Academy says is consistent with scientific explanations". ID looks for a very modest designer, while TE affirms that God made the whole universe, endowing it with the properties necessary to bring forth what God desires. Even YECs at least agree that God made the whole universe, though they disagree about how it jibes with scientific discoveries. It's no wonder that most scientists, including most Christian scientists, have not accepted ID. It hasn't yet produced much that can be called science, and even if it did, it only points to an intervening designer in nature (which could be aliens, etc.), not the transcendent Creator who made nature.

I believe God designed all natural processes and he's the reason they work so well. ID only sees design in the flagellum or other entities if they cannot be explained by natural processes, such as natural selection. In other words, assuming God is the author of the universe and its natural processes, that means ID limits God's design to aspects of God's design that defy God's design.

[ March 07, 2006, 04:52 AM: Message edited by: Mercury ]

 

This is the same problem that I have with bringing specific prayer back into schools. I don't want my kids praying to Allah, Buddah, or whoever the flavor is of the day just because it is prayer.

I don't want my kids learning about just any kind of creator, I want them to know THE Creator. Let the schools teach what they want and I will continue to train my children in the way of the Word.

 

I used to be an ID proponent until I started learning that the examples of irreducible complexity proposed by Behe were not really irreducibly complex, and I learned mechanisms whereby more complicated systems can evolve. After learning that most of the basic assumptions I had been taught about evolution are wrong (mutations are not invariably detrimental, there are indeed mechanisms for adding information to a genome, etc.) I decided I was being silly and left YE creationism for theistic evolution. In my opinion the move to teach ID in schools is just an ill-fated attempt to do an end run around objections on the grounds of separation of church and state and the proper realm of science and philosophy in the school. ID based on irreducible complexity scientifically is bankrupt--no one has yet produced a truly irreducibly complex system. ID based on irreducible complexity religiously is bankrupt--it replaces the Christian God with an anonymous and perhaps detached designer (maybe he's really more into playing SimWorld than listening to us little people!)

Very good point.

 

I personally believe America is gone beyond the point of recapturing it's once moral and spiritual values. We are close to wading in a cesspool of perverted sex lives and abortion normalcy. By perverted sex lives, I mean homosexuality and lesbianism as an everyday norm and so called family status. Oh did I forget the drug problem in this country as well?

So turning this country around to accept intelligent design and any decent form of morality seems out of the question. For to do so, would mean the gay agenda and abortion would have to be outlawed altogether. And that ain't gonna happen.No how, no way.

 

You are wrong as usual Craig by the Sea, the wonderful sea.

Evolution should not be taught in high school for the simple reason there is no need to do so particularly since it is an atheistic philosophy. Furthermore, there is no good scientific data that supports the theory of evolution.

Now I recognize that you are no rocket scientist. It might be interesting to read what a rocket scientist has to say about intelligent design.

The claim has frequently been made by those who believe in creation that since neither creation nor evolution can be proven both should be taught. Dr. Wernher von Braun, the father of the space program, made such a suggestion to the California State Board of Education in 1972. Excerpts from that letter are as follows:

“While the admission of a design of the universe ultimately raises the question of a designer [a subject outside of science], the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye. ....

..... We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance.”
With kindest regards
Sincerely,
Wernher von Braun

Notwithstanding Dr. von Braun’s recommendation perhaps the question of greatest moment is - why teach either? In particular why is it necessary to teach the concept of evolution to elementary and secondary students? At a time when a substantial number of students are graduating with only a marginal ability to read it seems that time spent on study of evolution is superfluous. Is it necessary for a child to be indoctrinated in the vagaries of evolution in order for them to understand reading, literature, history, geography, mathematics, physics, chemistry, or even high school biology? Why this incessant drumbeat that evolution be taught in our public schools? Certainly, the social impact of evolutionary thought with its ‘survival of the fittest’ is not trivial: it gave us Hitler, his master race, and the Holocaust; Marxist-Communism, Stalin, Mao, and their slaughter of millions; and Margaret Sanger, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, and abortion - the American Holocaust. Could it be that the education establishment and certain in the scientific community wish to eliminate from the conscious thought of young people any belief in the accountability of man before his Creator?

 

Bless your heart Helen. You are so correct so often. We just have to work on a few things?

 

Well, I guess it's better being called simple than a Godless atheist bound for hell-fire. . . Or were you including me among those with the "woefully inadequate and grossly ignorant" interpretations?

You should stop by the Science forum some time.