Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Intelligent Design
Topic Started: Feb 14 2005, 05:46 AM (360 Views)
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
I would like to engage in a a discussion on ID (Intelligent Design), what it is, what it isn't. In the last weeks much has been said about it that needs clarification in order to intelligently discuss it and make decisions regarding it.

I would like to avoid discussion of the two supposedly opposing views, creationism and evolution, except where distinguishing ID from them is necessary--if possible.

I would like to wager that will be impossible, but will persue it anyhow.

I would like to start with a recent piece by Michael J. Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University and a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."

Design for Living? (For the sake of brevity I have elided some material which you may read at the end of the link.)
Quote:
 
...As one of the scientists who have proposed design as an explanation for biological systems, I have found widespread confusion about what intelligent design is and what it is not.

First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments. For example, a critic recently caricatured intelligent design as the belief that if evolution occurred at all it could never be explained by Darwinian natural selection and could only have been directed at every stage by an omniscient creator. That's misleading. Intelligent design proponents do question whether random mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution occurred. And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator.

Rather, the contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic. The argument for it consists of four linked claims. The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.

...The 18th-century clergyman William Paley likened living things to a watch, arguing that the workings of both point to intelligent design. Modern Darwinists disagree with Paley that the perceived design is real, but they do agree that life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.

...Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, once wrote that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved....

The resemblance of parts of life to engineered mechanisms like a watch is enormously stronger than what Reverend Paley imagined. In the past 50 years modern science has shown that the cell, the very foundation of life, is run by machines made of molecules. There are little molecular trucks in the cell to ferry supplies, little outboard motors to push a cell through liquid.

In 1998 an issue of the journal Cell was devoted to molecular machines.... In fact, Dr. Alberts remarked, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines....

The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence. Here is where thoughtful people part company. Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the appearance of design in life as the result of random mutation and natural selection acting over immense stretches of time. Some scientists, however, think the Darwinists' confidence is unjustified. They note that although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell.

Scientists skeptical of Darwinian claims include many who have no truck with ideas of intelligent design, like those who advocate an idea called complexity theory, which envisions life self-organizing in roughly the same way that a hurricane does, and ones who think organisms in some sense can design themselves.

The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life. To evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.

The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.

Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore. Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design.


To me the key concept here is "the contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic" which is not based on physical evidence.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cruiser
Member Avatar
Member
I do not believe that the proponents of ID give enough credence to space/time. They want to get from point A to point B with a very short time frame and a misconception on how many trillions of systems there are in the cosmos.

This is somewhat analogous to having ten thousand monkeys sitting at keyboards and randomly pounding away for millions of years and finally one of them comes up with the lords prayer.

I happen to believe in the monkey theorem.
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
irongoat
Member
I have been restoring my 1957 MGA Roadster and have derived a theory of how it came into being. At first I thought it was created by intelligent design but now as I have arrived into an enlightened period I can now see that it was a result of evolution.

Here is how I theorize how it evolved. First it was a single bolt, then from the simple bolt sprang a washer and nut. After a few million years it slowley developed pistons, wheels and even a radio untill it was a sedan. After another few million years that bloated sedan evolved into the thing of beauty, a roadster.

I'm sure there are many archaic skeptics out there who in there little backward mind who will simply not accept this theory. We will deal with them by acting like they aren't as smart as us or just havn't advanced as far as the rest of us.

I'm calling on the ACLU to get on board in this as some garages may attempt to put Intelligent Design stickers in the shop manuals creating the illusion that there are other theories as to how my 1957 MGA Roadster came into being.
"In matters of style, swim with the current, In matters of principal, stand like a rock". Thomas jefferson
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cruiser
Member Avatar
Member
IG you are absolutely correct on evolution, and as evolution went on I now own a mercedes with a small engine that puts out over three 350 HP and rides like a cadillac.
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
irongoat
Member
cruiser, It appears we are in an advancing evolutionary period. My '57 MGA rides rough, accelerates slowley and is a wonderful nuisance.
"In matters of style, swim with the current, In matters of principal, stand like a rock". Thomas jefferson
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cruiser
Member Avatar
Member
IG, you have a great sense of humor and I imagine a car buff like myself.
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
So you would cut off your nose to spite your face?

Is one of the originators of ID not a good source to learn about ID?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wolfe59
Member
Well mine is still in the early stages and I wish time would hurry up and go by, this bolt is really rough on the ole rear-end. How many years do I have to go before the spring shows up?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cruiser
Member Avatar
Member
I can not distinguish ID from creationism. They both have some sort of creator.
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brewster
Member Avatar
Winemaker Extraordinaire
Oh, come now, Cruiser - you can't tell them apart??? :dunno:

There's far more letters in creationism.... :P
Posted Image My Favourite Campsite
Bow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Behe would say "And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator."

And while a creationist denies evolution, Behe says "Intelligent design proponents....do not doubt that evolution occurred."

So creationism and ID share some similarities and ID and evolutionary theory share some similarities but creationism and evolutionary theory share nothing in common.

Does that help define ID?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cruiser
Member Avatar
Member
Where does ID come from if not from god or an all powerfull something? Some sort of intelligence has to be there just by definition "intelligent".
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DanHouck
Member Avatar
Land of Enchantment NM
Intelligent design strikes me as the kind of theory that someone who can't handle that there might be a Creator but who also knows there's serious holes in evolution, comes up with to CYA. :)

Besides which, any diligent observer of humanity might be prone to question the "intelligent" part. :lol:

Dan
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Alan, it is my impression that just as evolitionary theory does not really try to answer philosopical questions about beiginnings, though some implication is inevitable, so too ID does not try to answer religious questions about the I in ID, though certainly some implication is inevitable.

But let's not rush to conclusions. I'd really like to just spend time exploring what "idears" IDers have.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
re Intelligent Design.....
when I use the term, I'm usually referring to the terrarium in which we live...an enclosed, self sustaining organism.
I'm talking about the ecosystem.
I'm talking about the life, death, rebirth cycle of LIFE(existence) on earth and throughout the cosmos.
I'm talking about the "glue" that hold atoms and molecules together and the mechanism that makes cells reproduce.
I don't think the catalyst of reproduction is just a random accident....that first amoeba didn't just start reproducing one day.
There is a strong suggestion (to me) of a purposeful force behind that action.

As to WHY and WHO....that is a question for philosophers/religious folks.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply