Intelligent Design: Fact or Fiction?

[mofca]

The Eucharist thread was moving in this direction, so I thought I would start a new thread. Its nice to see some Secular points of view, but lets try to keep it repectful, OK kids?

[Anomaly]

What do you mean by 'secular'? I don't claim to be a follower of any specific religion, but I'm not an idiot that denies the spiritual nature of humanity.

[Era Might]

What do you mean by "intelligent design". That God created the universe?

[mofca]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1036269' date='Aug 2 2006, 09:34 AM']
What do you mean by 'secular'? I don't claim to be a follower of any specific religion, but I'm not an idiot that denies the spiritual nature of humanity.
[/quote]
By secular, I mean points of view from people like yourself who don't claim to be followers of religion. Even if you denied the spiritual nature of humanity, I wouldn't use the word idiot to describe you.

[quote name='Era Might' post='1036297' date='Aug 2 2006, 10:05 AM']
What do you mean by "intelligent design". That God created the universe?
[/quote]
From Wikipedia:
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept 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." Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

[Anomaly]

Intelligent Design is not Fact, and may be Fiction.

It is a Theory. And in my subjective opinion of objective reasoning, is the most likely and reasonable explanation.

SirMystiq (sp) had posted that reality and the universe has existed too long and that disproves the Intelligent Design Theory which he qualified as a scientific oxymoron.

[Era Might]

[quote name='mofca' post='1036300' date='Aug 2 2006, 01:24 PM']From Wikipedia:
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept 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." Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.
[/quote]
I don't know about all that. It's sufficient to say God created the universe. How he did it is for scientists to discuss.

[Guest JeffCR07]

In my humble opinion, it depends on how the "theory" of Intelligent Design is formulated as to whether or not it is a convincing argument philosophically. If one attempts a mechanistic articulation of the theory by process of efficient causality (this stuff is way too complex, no way it could happen by accident) then I reject it as a invalid. However, if the theory is articulated in a manner of argumentation according to [i]final[/i] causality, and argues that the changes and development of species which, in the order of efficient causality, are "accidental" point to a common final end that must exist outside the system of nature, then I would agree that the argument is indeed convincing.

Sadly, it is the former, and not the latter, that is far more common in the debate.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I am rather open on the question, as is the Church - but I find the subject compelling. First of all, I believe God as creator is a given. I believe God [i]could[/i] have created the universe many millions of years ago, but I think it is illogical to think the world as we know it is the result of completely random chance. If the evolution of species actually occured, I think without a doubt that God's hand was there to tweak where He felt necessary.

[Anomaly]

I get you Jeff. In plain terms.

The observable evolutional development of certain species, such as lions, without the statistically necessary genetic mutations and defects and graduated parmutations, decry the validity of selective evolution.

I believe even Darwin pointed that out. The fact is, selective evolution exists, but it cannot statistically explain the course and variety of species.

Mathmetics is the best defense for Intelligent Design by studying the complexities and evolutional development of the many species and calculating backwards. One would have to accept the Chaos Theory for each and every species, or recalculate the age of the universe to provide more time for a sufficeint number of chance occurences.

[Socrates]

"Intelligent Design" simply refers to the theory that the development of life on earth is the result of design by an intelligence, rather than random chance occurances.

I have attended a lecture by Michael Behe, one of ID's most famous proponents, and found his arguments quite compelling.

"ID" centers largely on "irreducable complexity" - the fact that many functioning systems in living organisms, even at the cellular level, are so complex that the system will not function without [i]all[/i] components being present and in the right place. (He used the parts of a simple mousetrap as a sample illustration of this principle. With even one part missing or out of place, the mousetrap will not function.) Systems of living organisms are far more complex than mousetraps, or even any existing man-made machines. It is illogical to assume that they came to be by random, step-by-step mutations, as the Darwinist proposes.

Most opponents of ID, from what I've seen, attack straw-man charicatures of ID theory, rather than what the theory actually states, in order to ridicule and discredit it.

These atheistic opponents claim ID is "junk science," yet their belief that life came to be through completely random, unintelligent, chance processes is not science; it has not and cannot be scientifically proven in the lab. This belief is the result of a philosophical prejudice that there is no Creator, not of scientific proof.

Edited August 3, 2006 by Socrates

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Socrates,
What do you think of the proposition that "new" bodily systems can coopt and eventually replace the old systems, without disrupting the overall flow. Sort of like patching an installation on your computer.
This is the arguement I have heard against the irreducibly complex theory.

[Socrates]

[quote name='thedude' post='1036852' date='Aug 3 2006, 08:52 AM']
Socrates,
What do you think of the proposition that "new" bodily systems can coopt and eventually replace the old systems, without disrupting the overall flow. Sort of like patching an installation on your computer.
This is the arguement I have heard against the irreducibly complex theory.
[/quote]
Sounds like an extremely weak argument.

Obviously the patch or installation was the result of intelligent design (by a human programmer) for a specific purpose. No sane person would assume the patch simply came about by totally random self-generating code. Completely random changes in the programming code would destroy the functioning of the original program long before they could every become a functional patch or replacement of the original program.

I think that argument actually helps prove the absurdity of random mutation Darwinism.

Intelligent Design theory does not deny the possiblity of change or evolution, but only denies that this can come about as the result on random, unintelligent chance processes.

In the same way, a human hacker or chopper can modify a man-made machine - say a car, for instance - by changing things piece-by-piece, maybe even entirely replacing the engine. But for this to be effective, intelligence and design are necessary on the part of the guy doing the tinkering. If parts were simply relaced completely randomly, without any knowledge or care of how they worked, you would not wind up with a new, improved hot-rod, but a non-functioning wreck.

[mofca]

[quote]These atheistic opponents claim ID is "junk science," yet their belief that life came to be through completely random, unintelligent, chance processes is not science; it has not and cannot be scientifically proven in the lab. This belief is the result of a philosophical prejudice that there is no Creator, not of scientific proof.
[/quote]

ID certainly cannot be proven in a lab, either. And the assumtion that the so-called "athiestic" opponents to ID claim that life is random is false. The only thing that could be considerd random in evolutionary theory is genetic mutation, yet it can be measured and predicted.

Edited August 4, 2006 by mofca

[Socrates]

[quote name='mofca' post='1037216' date='Aug 3 2006, 07:11 PM']
ID certainly cannot be proven in a lab, either. And the assumtion that the so-called "athiestic" opponents to ID claim that life is random is false. The only thing that could be considerd random in evolutionary theory is genetic mutation, yet it can be measured and predicted.
[/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't random genetic mutation the only thing that causes a species to change, according to "classic" Darwinism?

It makes much more sense to assume that ordered, functioning systems are the result of intelligent design, than that they are caused simply by randomly occuring changes.

And has anyone really successfully predicted genetic mutations?

Edited August 4, 2006 by Socrates

[mofca]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1037221' date='Aug 3 2006, 07:24 PM']
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't random genetic mutation the only thing that causes a species to change, according to "classic" Darwinism?

It makes much more sense to assume that ordered, functioning systems are the result of intelligent design, than that they are caused simply by randomly occuring changes.

And has anyone really successfully predicted genetic mutations?
[/quote]

Natural selection is what causes the species to change, and is not a random phenomenon. Genetic mutation can be an impetus to natural selection.

Large organisms, including human beings, average about one mutation per ten gametes-that is, there is a 10% chance that any given sperm or egg cell produced will have a new and inheritable change in the genetic make up. To clarify, it is the frequency of mutations that can be predicted, not the gene itself that is mutated.

Edited August 4, 2006 by mofca

[pyranima]

I approach the question from the stance of Truth is God. after that ID or Evolution does not matter.

My problem with most ID people is that they approach the question from the question of God is truth, which i find highly objectable.

I myself am an IDE

[VeniteAdoremus]

Evolution does have a point, and we can't easily shove it aside. I can type up an entire argument in favour of it, but I haven't had breakfast yet.

There is a school of IDers that completely accept evolution and only claim that the process has been set in motion by an intelligence, there's a school in favour of the 'nudging'-theory, and in both schools some people think the intelligence did all of it aiming for human life, and some people don't.

If we can prove beyond all doubt that evolution doesn't work, we could take it as a proof for intelligent design - but there's a logical flaw there. It's like proving beyond all doubt that there aren't books in the wardrobe, so there must be clothes in it. While there could be something entirely different in there that we'd never think of (like a complete fantasy-like world with a communicative lion, to name just a thing).

I very highly doubt that there is a scientific way to prove or disprove intelligent design without the intelligence itself stepping in. For a Catholic, "it" has done that - quite convincingly. That's why I am all for ID. But for an atheist that argument doesn't count.

I don't think we should present ID as 'The One And Only Scientific Truth' - because it isn't (which is a good thing, since they tend to get disproved ). What we SHOULD do, and why we should keep researching it, is use it as an argument against atheists who are scientifically trying to disprove there is a God, because that is equally impossible. Which is something they should realise.


(This got way longer than I planned - and I still haven't had breakfast!)

[Franimus]

Quite frankly, I can't wait for everyone to get into nitty-gritty details of expiraments and such... That's why I side with ID as opposed to Creationism, since only Christians support Creationism (I've yet to see infidels finding proof that the world is only a few thousand years old)

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1037210' date='Aug 3 2006, 09:01 PM']
Sounds like an extremely weak argument.

Obviously the patch or installation was the result of intelligent design (by a human programmer) for a specific purpose. No sane person would assume the patch simply came about by totally random self-generating code. Completely random changes in the programming code would destroy the functioning of the original program long before they could every become a functional patch or replacement of the original program.

I think that argument actually helps prove the absurdity of random mutation Darwinism.

Intelligent Design theory does not deny the possiblity of change or evolution, but only denies that this can come about as the result on random, unintelligent chance processes.

In the same way, a human hacker or chopper can modify a man-made machine - say a car, for instance - by changing things piece-by-piece, maybe even entirely replacing the engine. But for this to be effective, intelligence and design are necessary on the part of the guy doing the tinkering. If parts were simply relaced completely randomly, without any knowledge or care of how they worked, you would not wind up with a new, improved hot-rod, but a non-functioning wreck.
[/quote]
The changes would not necessarily have to be random, but the "compliment theory" (as I think it is called) could be a legitimate alternative to the irreducibly complex theory. I think you could be a proponent of intelligent design and promote the compliment theory as the Designer's means of "evolution".