Intelligent Design: Fact or Fiction?

[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".