The Case For Intelligent Design (ID)

[jmccr8]

1 minute ago, lightly said:

    I’m not sure I’d want to live in a world without ice cream and mini chocolate covered donuts.     and coffee.   Thank you Lord.  

Hi Lightly

Yes that was my first thought as well but  fortunately I am a carnivore with a conscience. I don’t kill animals and leave their babies abandoned all alone, I care for them and feed them until they are fat enough to eat.

[pellinore]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Allow energy to be created!

This is getting to be fun.

 

44 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Pellinore

Superman/Clark Kent doesn’t have to eat

These ideas are getting a bit unrealistic, imo.

[jmccr8]

6 minutes ago, pellinore said:

 

These ideas are getting a bit unrealistic, imo.

Hi Pellinore

If humans and animals didn’t have to eat then there would be waste, methane gas, stoves, fridges consuming energy or affecting climate change. Does god eat?

Edited February 1, 2023 by jmccr8

[Only_]

12 hours ago, Timothy said:

I’d prefer a quick summary over going in-depth.

Usually not worth the time to go in-depth with these things.

That seems the case in this instance.

But feel free to provide more info. 

Let's start by a definition:

''The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.''

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Source: https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

Edited February 1, 2023 by Only_

[Ell]

3 hours ago, Only_ said:

Let's start by a definition:

''The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.''

That is not true. In fact it is a treacherous simplification of evolution theory.

 

Sexual selection, for example, is part of evolution theory. Sexual selection is driven by intelligence.

 

Then there also is a hypothesis of teleological evolution, which is directed evolution, ultimately possibly also involving sexual selection.

[psyche101]

11 hours ago, Only_ said:

Let's start by a definition:

''The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.''

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Source: https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

 

 

The watchmaker principle. This is where the religion side of ID becomes apparent. 

It's flawed because it has a point where it breaks down. The watchmaker has no watchmaker.

That and there's abundant evidence for pre Cambrian life. 

I don't know why creationists insist fossils don't exist rather than visiting a museum and actually seeing them. 

[pellinore]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

The watchmaker principle. This is where the religion side of ID becomes apparent. 

It's flawed because it has a point where it breaks down. The watchmaker has no watchmaker.

That and there's abundant evidence for pre Cambrian life. 

I don't know why creationists insist fossils don't exist rather than visiting a museum and actually seeing them. 

They would probably find an acceptable explanation for fossils, such as they were planted by the Devil to deceive Man. I don't know if there are any sincere Flat earthers (probably there are as an Arizona man killed himself in a home made rocket a few years ago searching for proof) but if there are, they manage to discount copious amounts of evidence that the Earth is spherical.

I recently raised the possibility that the theory of evolution was more plausible than a Creator on another forum and got this put down: by your arguments you seem very ignorant and uneducated on the subject. God is not bound by time, space or matter - therefore God doesn't need a creator. God is infinite. When he created Adam and Eve, he gave them free will. Eve decided to sin with that free will, thus condemning humans to sin. God, being so humble, decided to give us a second chance. He sent Jesus to the earth and worked through him, taking all our sins upon himself as he was crucified. This gave us the chance to reach his kingdom, if we put our faith in our Lord, by grace. So your point being that bad things happen to good people and vice versa, has nothing to do with God. Lucifer grants success to those against God, although temporary, as in the end, you will be thrown into hell with the rest of the wicked.

That shut me up! You can't argue against that!

[psyche101]

41 minutes ago, pellinore said:

They would probably find an acceptable explanation for fossils, such as they were planted by the Devil to deceive Man. I don't know if there are any sincere Flat earthers (probably there are as an Arizona man killed himself in a home made rocket a few years ago searching for proof) but if there are, they manage to discount copious amounts of evidence that the Earth is spherical.

 

I was actually talking to a pilot at a bbq year before last who was an avid flat earther. He honestly seemed very convinced.

Richard Dawkins interviewed Wendy Wright, a creationist spokesperson. On the subject of fossil record, Wendy asked where are these fossils? They don't exist!! To which Dawkins replied, they are in the Smithsonian. I suggest you pay a visit.

41 minutes ago, pellinore said:

I recently raised the possibility that the theory of evolution was more plausible than a Creator on another forum and got this put down: by your arguments you seem very ignorant and uneducated on the subject. God is not bound by time, space or matter - therefore God doesn't need a creator. God is infinite. When he created Adam and Eve, he gave them free will. Eve decided to sin with that free will, thus condemning humans to sin. God, being so humble, decided to give us a second chance. He sent Jesus to the earth and worked through him, taking all our sins upon himself as he was crucified. This gave us the chance to reach his kingdom, if we put our faith in our Lord, by grace. So your point being that bad things happen to good people and vice versa, has nothing to do with God. Lucifer grants success to those against God, although temporary, as in the end, you will be thrown into hell with the rest of the wicked.

That shut me up! You can't argue against that!

Now that I know your posting better (and liking it) I get you

I agree, no arguing with that. It's pointless.

[pellinore]

44 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

 

I was actually talking to a pilot at a bbq year before last who was an avid flat earther. He honestly seemed very convinced.

He must have been joking. One of the skills of being a pilot is knowing how to navigate, so he must be aware of great circle routes. And time zones.

[pellinore]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

 

 

Richard Dawkins interviewed Wendy Wright, a creationist spokesperson. On the subject of fossil record, Wendy asked where are these fossils? They don't exist!! 

 

Wendy puts me in mind of Philomena Cunk, who is here exploring the mysteries of time:

 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, pellinore said:

Wendy puts me in mind of Philomena Cunk, who is here exploring the mysteries of time:

 

Thank you that was fricken brilliant.

I really liked her in death to 2020 and the sequel. 

I see the similarities you speak of.......

[Timothy]

On 2/2/2023 at 3:27 AM, Only_ said:

Let's start by a definition:

''The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.''

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Source: https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

How about we start with this instead? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design ) :

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".^{[1][2][3][4][5]} Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."^[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.^[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.^{[n 1]}

Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,^[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,^[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.^[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,^[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.^[7] This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.^[15]

ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: irreducible complexity and specified complexity, asserting that certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible.

ID seeks to challenge the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,^[2][16] though proponents concede that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.^[17] As a positive argument against evolution, ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God.^{[1][n 2]} ID proponents then conclude by analogy that the complex features, as defined by ID, are evidence of design.^{[18][n 3]}Critics of ID find a false dichotomy in the premise that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design.^[19][20]

Edited February 3, 2023 by Timothy
Formatting.

[Tatetopa]

On 2/1/2023 at 10:25 PM, psyche101 said:

When he created Adam and Eve, he gave them free will. Eve decided to sin with that free will, thus condemning humans to sin.

Thanks for that, I have  never considered the implications of it before.  A sin is making a personal choice that the absolute autocrat doesn't like. If you disagree with the autocrat you are evil  and should be punished.  Sounds like the model for every autocratic government on earth ever. A priest king on a mud mound hill in a mud brick city being the model for cosmic creation seems a little more childish than I would expect for a being with infinite knowledge and power.

[kartikg]

Most  things in universe are suboptimal, if anything it was designed by a less intelligent beings 

[Ell]

In the beginning there was nothing.

That could not endure eternally as there was neither time nor distance.

So nothing fell apart into nothingness, but there were still neither time nor distance, merely the semblance of both.

Next nothingness decided it required a watch, and created the universes of time and space and watched those, waiting for a watchmaker to evolve.

 

Nowadays we have done away with watches, mostly. When we want to know the time, we consult our mobile phone.

Thusly we have surpassed nothingness.

[Only_]

On 2/3/2023 at 3:58 PM, Timothy said:

How about we start with this instead? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design ) :

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".^{[1][2][3][4][5]} Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."^[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.^[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.^{[n 1]}

Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,^[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,^[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.^[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,^[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.^[7] This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.^[15]

ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: irreducible complexity and specified complexity, asserting that certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible.

ID seeks to challenge the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,^[2][16] though proponents concede that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.^[17] As a positive argument against evolution, ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God.^{[1][n 2]} ID proponents then conclude by analogy that the complex features, as defined by ID, are evidence of design.^{[18][n 3]}Critics of ID find a false dichotomy in the premise that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design.^[19][20]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source in this case.

Really, anyone can edit that page to fit a particular bias. The skeptic societies are hijacking it. It's too controversial.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Only_

[Only_]

On 1/31/2023 at 8:44 PM, psyche101 said:

It's sad that people take this charlatan at his word and don't bother with any fact checking at all. 

Stephen C. Meyer was invited on The Michael Shermer Show (a skeptic podcast).

It was an amazing conversation. They treated each other with respect, although they obviously disagreed. Meyer made a lot of good points.

Stephen C. Meyer, as well as Michael Behe, William A. Demski, Douglas Axe, David Berlinski are very intelligent people and scholars in their own respective disciplines.

Intelligent Design (ID) cannot be easily dismissed.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Only_

[Only_]

9 hours ago, Ell said:

In the beginning there was nothing.

That could not endure eternally as there was neither time nor distance.

So nothing fell apart into nothingness, but there were still neither time nor distance, merely the semblance of both.

Next nothingness decided it required a watch, and created the universes of time and space and watched those, waiting for a watchmaker to evolve.

 

Nowadays we have done away with watches, mostly. When we want to know the time, we consult our mobile phone.

Thusly we have surpassed nothingness.

Looks like ''nothingness'' as you describe it is in fact an intelligent agent. That it has a will of it's own.

That's the problem with those ''quantum fluke'', a ''Universe from nothing'' (Lawrence Krauss) explanation for the origin of the Universe.

What was before the quantum vacuum? Where do the laws of physics came from? It stops there and fails to provide a serious explanation.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Only_

[Ell]

1 hour ago, Only_ said:

Looks like ''nothingness'' as you describe it is in fact an intelligent agent. That it has a will of it's own.

That's the problem with those ''quantum fluke'', a ''Universe from nothing'' (Lawrence Krauss) explanation for the origin of the Universe.

What was before the quantum vacuum? Where do the laws of physics came from? It stops there and fails to provide a serious explanation.

Sigh ...

I made such a distinction between nothing and nothingness ...

I never said that nothingness had a will, merely that it decided in a semblance of time and space when there as yet was neither time nor space.

[Only_]

3 minutes ago, Ell said:

Sigh ...

I made such a distinction between nothing and nothingness ...

I never said that nothingness had a will, merely that it decided in a semblance of time and space when there as yet was neither time nor space.

How can ''nothingness'' merely ''decide'' anything?

[Ell]

48 minutes ago, Only_ said:

How can ''nothingness'' merely ''decide'' anything?

How can a quantum function collapse?

[Only_]

16 minutes ago, Ell said:

How can a quantum function collapse?

Consciousness.,s

As for the origin of the Universe, I think we have to posit a first-cause. That's the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Only_

[Ell]

1 hour ago, Only_ said:

Consciousness.,s

As for the origin of the Universe, I think we have to posit a first-cause. That's the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

Nothingness = God

[Timothy]

18 hours ago, Only_ said:

Wikipedia is not a reliable source in this case.

Really, anyone can edit that page to fit a particular bias. The skeptic societies are hijacking it. It's too controversial.

What a cop out. I thought you’d have more of a response than nothing.

[Occupational Hubris]

ID is never the best answer becuase it alway sleads to a prime mover. It's just a cop out an no explanation at all.