Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

Mattison,
If that's the case then they are still using flawed logic. Simply because we see a pattern, does not infer a designer. Of course that's the first thing some would assume because humans are the designers of many things, and as humans, we would naturally assume that because there is a pettern, it points to a designer. Still, a logical falacy. I can point to several natural patterns that occur without a designers hand guiding them. Just because life is more complex that a series of ripples in the sand doesn't mean that an intelligent hand had any more to do with forming life than a human hand had anything to do with making ripples in sand.


Just look into space, there are countless perfect patterns in the universe, but that doesn't mean there was someone there with a paintbruxh, as it were.

-----------------------
You don't understand it. Not even close.
-----------------------

...I read the original paper that started this whole “intelligent Design” stuff (can’t remember the fellers name). And from what I read, my statements are VERY close.

In the original paper that started ID, the guy spewed reams of Scientific facts and then commented, something to the effect of “see, the parameters that go into making life possible are so complex that it’s NOT Possible for it all to have been an accident, therefore there HAS to be a creator.”

Making the claim that you believe something is not possible doesn't automatically make your believe correct, and certainly cannot be taken for scientific evidence

He even goes on to "prove, through more spewing of scientific fact" that God HAS to be the God of Christendom, and even makes the claim that any other God is a false God.

Some of his reasoning goes like "Scientists have claimed there was a beginning to the universe. If there was a beginning then there had to be a beginner. Therefore, that beginner had to be God."

Understand, these are not my words.

I read this paper, with my own eyes. The whole thing. You should read it your self, it's very "interesting."

I’ll find the guys name and try to find a link to his paper. Anyone who wants to can see this for Her/Himself.

So, in my defense, I feel I am very close, and I feel I most certainly DO understand.


As I said, I READ the paper.


[edit on 25-8-2006 by hlesterjerome]

[edit on 25-8-2006 by hlesterjerome]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Mattison,
If that's the case then they are still using flawed logic. Simply because we see a pattern, does not infer a designer. Of course that's the first thing some would assume because humans are the designers of many things, and as humans, we would naturally assume that because there is a pettern, it points to a designer. Still, a logical falacy. I can point to several natural patterns that occur without a designers hand guiding them. Just because life is more complex that a series of ripples in the sand doesn't mean that an intelligent hand had any more to do with forming life than a human hand had anything to do with making ripples in sand.


Just look into space, there are countless perfect patterns in the universe, but that doesn't mean there was someone there with a paintbruxh, as it were.

From what I can tell, you're the only person discussing patterns. When did I mention patterns? I've said nothing about 'patterns.' I pointed out that people infer design based on empirical evidence. I've stated nothing about patterns. Complex things form all the time and patterns form all the time. So?

How did this get brought into the conversation?

Originally posted by hlesterjerome
...I read the original paper that started this whole “intelligent Design” stuff (can’t remember the fellers name). And from what I read, my statements are VERY close.

Well congratulations. You've read one paper. Wow!

Look if you're making statements like this:

1. The Universe is very complex.
2. An individual makes the comment that the Universe is too complex for life to have come into being with out a Divine Creator (I.E. God.).
3. Therefore the God of Christendom HAS to exist.

It doesn't matter if you've read everything ever written by an ID proponent, you still don't understand.

In the original paper that started ID, the guy spewed reams of Scientific facts and then commented, something to the effect of “see, the parameters that go into making life possible are so complex that it’s NOT Possible for it all to have been an accident, therefore there HAS to be a creator.”

I don't think there's a definitive paper that 'started it all.' No ID proponent use the phrase, "the universe is too complex to have arisen." They say certain features of the universe show evidence of design. That's it.

Making the claim that you believe something is not possible doesn't automatically make your believe correct, and certainly cannot be taken for scientific evidencep

So? No one here is doing that. It's funny people here don't actually know what I believe. Since I've never offered my beliefs, I certainly don't offer them as scientific evidence.

He even goes on to "prove, through more spewing of scientific fact" that God HAS to be the God of Christendom, and even makes the claim that any other God is a false God.

Then he's left the realm of science and ID, and has moved onto philosophy.

Some of his reasoning goes like "Scientists have claimed there was a beginning to the universe. If there was a beginning then there had to be a beginner. Therefore, that beginner had to be God."

This is a logical philosophical proof, not a scientific one. It's called the Kalam Cosmological argument and is something like as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

But again this is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. Big difference.

Understand, these are not my words.

Nope, I believe they are WL Craigs, but I could be wrong... that's the first place I remember reading them though.

I read this paper, with my own eyes. The whole thing. You should read it your self, it's very "interesting."

I’ll find the guys name and try to find a link to his paper. Anyone who wants to can see this for Her/Himself.

So, in my defense, I feel I am very close, and I feel I most certainly DO understand.

As I said, I READ the paper.

Well... if its an ID paper, and as signficant for the movement as you say it is, then I'm sure I've already read it. Of course, since you don't remember the paper, it makes it tough to judge. It also makes it tough for the reader to read something when you yourself can't even say what it is.

I'd say based on your inability to differentiate scientific theory from philosophical theory, and that you're saying ID tries to prove the Christian God, you're still a long way from understanding.

Originally posted by hlesterjerome
-----------------------
You don't understand it. Not even close.
-----------------------

...I read the original paper that started this whole “intelligent Design” stuff (can’t remember the fellers name). And from what I read, my statements are VERY close...

...I’ll find the guys name and try to find a link to his paper. Anyone who wants to can see this for Her/Himself.

Finding the guy's name/paper or anything source material, and then some evidence that it "started" the ID movement, please. Otherwise your "summary" doesn't really say much more than your opinion of the subject matter.

Mattison,
The empiricle evidence that has been put forth by ID proponents is that something as complex as life must've had a designer, becasue otherwise it wouldn't be this complex or 'perfect'. This is the 'pattern' I was talking about. Just because I use another word, doesn't mean it isn't apt. In addition to that, irreducible complexity, a concept that is far from proven, is the only other bit of empiricle evidence that IDers can put forth.

BTW, IDers are creationists whether they like it or not. In order for intelligence to have made the design, the designer must have been the creator. Maybe not the biblical creator, but one with his abilities (at least as far as the creation part goes).

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Mattison,
The empiricle evidence that has been put forth by ID proponents is that something as complex as life must've had a designer, becasue otherwise it wouldn't be this complex or 'perfect'. This is the 'pattern' I was talking about. Just because I use another word, doesn't mean it isn't apt. In addition to that, irreducible complexity, a concept that is far from proven, is the only other bit of empiricle evidence that IDers can put forth.

Untrue. I would suggest you read a book by an ID proponent. Perfection never enters into the ID arguments, and in fact patterns are exactly what isn't observed in ID. Patterns can be explained by natural processes. Things like crystals are complex and exhibit patterns. ID makes no claims about complexity alone, and makes no claims whatsoever about patterns. It has nothing to do with 'another word.' Pattern simply is an inadequate word to describe any empirical evidence observed by IDists.

BTW, just so we understand: "something as complex as life must've had a designer, becasue otherwise it wouldn't be this complex or 'perfect" is not empirical evidence of anything, especially ID. Empirical evidence is something vastly different. Why don't read Denton's book... at least you'd have a clue what he was talking about.

Where have I suggested IC was proven? I've not done this. If anything, I describe it as one of the tenets on which ID is based. I don't claim IC is proven; and I don't deny its controversial nature. Furthermore, IC is only a single tenet of ID. If you were familiar with the theory in even a cursory way you'd be aware there are other ideas including specified complexity, which is vastly different from the 'patterns' and 'ripples in the sand' you've described.

If you'd ever bothered to read any ID, you'd realize this.

BTW, IDers are creationists whether they like it or not. In order for intelligence to have made the design, the designer must have been the creator. Maybe not the biblical creator, but one with his abilities (at least as far as the creation part goes).

Okay... when did I deny this? I explicitly pointed out that IDists were creationists in the loose definition of the word. I further pointed out, using that same loose definition Darwin himself, and heck even Einstein were creationists. I don't deny this.

I do deny that IDists are Creationists, but it appears we're on the same page here.

[edit on 25-8-2006 by mattison0922]

Fair enough.

However, as it is, evolution is a much more reasonable, and so far more provable and predictable explaination of the state of life on Earth. And, since the evidence of evolution is far more abundant than than the evidence for ID, I tend to go with evolution.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Fair enough.

However, as it is, evolution is a much more reasonable, and so far more provable and predictable explaination of the state of life on Earth. And, since the evidence of evolution is far more abundant than than the evidence for ID, I tend to go with evolution.

Well as you said... fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Fair enough.

However, as it is, evolution is a much more reasonable, and so far more provable and predictable explaination of the state of life on Earth. And, since the evidence of evolution is far more abundant than than the evidence for ID, I tend to go with evolution.

The trouble with the Evolution/ID debate, for me anyway, is ID seems like a much more progressive and intellectual theory than Evolution. Hear me out. Unlike Creationism, which simply states God created the Everything in 7 days, Intelligent Design (to me anyway) simply means there was an intelligence behind the origins of the Universe. Inherent in any study of such a theory is going to be a lot of gray area between philosophy and science. That scares many Scientists off. If it's at all philosophical then it must not be science. Too bad really since Science is based on Philosophy.

What did Sir Isaac Newton call himself? A scientist? No. He and the other members of the Royal Society (who basically created the study of Science as we know it) called themselves "Natural Philosophers." So, simply saying that ID should be a philosophical pursuit and not a scientific pursuit is like saying fishing should only be for food and not for relaxation. Why not both? Why are the two mutually exclusive?

In the 17th and 18th century when Science was being born Newton and others also dabbled in Alchemy, and in fact that dabbling led to many discoveries of the chemical nature that otherwise would've never happened. Today we look back on Alchemy as akin to pagan witchcraft and the scientific community has spent years "covering up" Isaac Newton's role in Alchemy. This is mainly because the mathmatical approach to science won out over the philosophical approach and have been "ashamed" of it ever since.

What would science be like today if we'd not separated philosophy from scientific research? In many ways I think ID is just as much a throw back to more natural (even pagan) approach to science and therefore a very healthy alternative to the dominant scientific method that tends to ingore anything not showing up on paper in the data. IMO, science has become the religion that can't be questioned, and religion has become the researchers looking for answers to long asked questions.

Just my 2 cents.

Maybe, but the problem with philosophy is that it is not provable. When it comes to understanding the world around us in as factual a way as possible, proof is needed. Personally, I believe in a higher power, and that the universe is organized in a way that is more complex than the simple [beginning-> middle-> end] scenerio, but I'm also careful not to apply my own thaught processes to something that hasn't yet been shown to show those same processes (the designer). Doing so would limit the possabilities of different, yet unknown, functions.

To me evolution is a process that led to many highly functional beings. But when it comes to making the leap to the assumption that something sentient designed it all, I'm not quite ready for that. Not enough proof, too much faith.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I believe in a higher power, and that the universe is organized in a way that is more complex than the simple [beginning-> middle-> end] scenerio, but I'm also careful not to apply my own thaught processes to something that hasn't yet been shown to show those same processes (the designer).

To me evolution is a process that led to many highly functional beings. But when it comes to making the leap to the assumption that something sentient designed it all, I'm not quite ready for that. Not enough proof, too much faith.

Actually, I'd like to address this from a philosophical perspective for a bit. You stated that you believe in a higher power, and you believe in evolution's ability to create things, further stating that you won't assume a creator designed it all (which ID doesn't do). Why believe in a higher power? It's clear you don't believe this higher power guides evolution, and from your posting I infer that you don't subscribe to a belief in a personal God. If your higher power isn't personally involved with your life, and your higher power doesn't create, that is life can be attributed to natural causes, what exactly does your higher power do?

Honestly, it seems a little unneccessary.

I don't believe that my higher power is necessary for my life (not the direct way the biblical deity does). And just because a higher power exists, doesn't mean that it is concious in the way that we understand, or has a direct influence on us necessarily. As I see it, philosophicly speaking, this higher power is, in a sense all thought and conciousness, matter and energy. So as I see it, it is not the higher power that designed evolution, but evolution that designed this higher power.

I hope that makes sense.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Maybe, but the problem with philosophy is that it is not provable.

True. However, there are plenty of things in Science that aren't provable, too. anti-matter, white holes, string theory, quantum foam, even the big bang... When it comes to origins or the basic constituents of life, postulation and inference has to be made, whether you're dealing with science or philosophy.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
When it comes to understanding the world around us in as factual a way as possible, proof is needed. Personally, I believe in a higher power, and that the universe is organized in a way that is more complex than the simple [beginning-> middle-> end] scenerio,

That's basically ID in a nutshell.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
But when it comes to making the leap to the assumption that something sentient designed it all, I'm not quite ready for that. Not enough proof, too much faith.

And that's basically what ID proponents are fighting for... to be given the chance to research ID on an equal footing with Evolution and come up with the "proof". Personally, I'm not interested in ID being taught in school. However, I do think the scientific community needs to get it's anterior segment out of it's Black Hole long enough to consider non-traditional explanations before demonizing those who are willing to think "outside the box."

Originally posted by SKMDC1

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
When it comes to understanding the world around us in as factual a way as possible, proof is needed. Personally, I believe in a higher power, and that the universe is organized in a way that is more complex than the simple [beginning-> middle-> end] scenerio,

That's basically ID in a nutshell.

As well as any other belief that claims to be rooted in science. But things go incredibly awry from here very often.

Rren - hope this "case in point" outline helps explain my concerns about focusing on the mechanic (ID) rather than the mechanisms (evolutionary biology).



H5N1 bird flu is spreading, and evolving, rapidly - yet Evolution Major Vanished From the USA's Approved Federal List.

If students who need it don't get their funding, then the rich control critical information, and the poor stay ignorant, controlled by their ignorance.

For one thing, knowledge of evolutionary biology is necessary to create vaccines - and use them safely.



Evolution: Bird Flu and Education.

UN confirms new bird flu virus strain

United Nations officials in Bangkok Thursday confirmed that the recent outbreak of avian influenza along the Thailand-Laos Mekong River border area was due to a strain of virus not previously present in either country...

"...close monitoring of diagnostic results by FAO has revealed that bird flu is endemic in some areas while new strains have emerged in other places," an FAO release said.


***

Bird flu viruses diversifying, making vaccine target harder to pick: WHO

"...influenza viruses have evolutionary pressures on them and they evolve. They change. And that's what we're seeing."

***

New data indicate that the H5N1 virus that causes bird flu has been quicky spreading and evolving through a process called recombination.

Recombination occurs when viruses pick up new gene sequences to rapidly proliferate, and experts say both the bird flu and seasonal flu viruses have becoem quite adept at it.

The ability of viruses to achieve recombination makes it more difficult to develop vaccines to combat the bugs and also affects the timing and distribution of the vaccines, experts say.

***

...spokeswoman, Samara Yudof, said evolutionary biology would be restored to the list, but as of last night it was still missing.

If a major is not on the list, students in that major cannot get grants unless they declare another major...

Dr. Rissing said removing evolutionary biology from the list of acceptable majors would discourage students who needed the grants from pursuing the field, at a time when studies of how genes act and evolve are producing valuable insights into human health.

Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List

Bird Flu: Spreading.

14 People Die of Illness Located in Bird Flu Stricken Region

The symptoms of the disease are high fever along with bleeding from nose and mouth at the time of death, which is similar to that of the bird flu virus.

***

Two more districts in Cambodia hit by bird flu

Hospital in Bandung treats more patients suspected of having bird flu

***

Public Health ministry 'drafts' pharmacists to monitor bird flu

Pharmacists and drugstore employees all over Thailand are being 'drafted' - or at least encouraged to enlist in the government effort to contain bird flu - as village public health
volunteers to help monitor the country's bird flu outbreak, Public Health Minister Pinij Jarusombat said Friday.

"...The symptoms of influenza, dengue fever, and bird flu are similar," Mr. Pinij said, "so the the authorities have to implement strict measures to monitor the bird flu epidemic."


The main locations for special monitoring are the hospitals and villages but they were not enough to ensure control of the outbreak, he said.

Vaccines: Mutation and Evolution.

Bird Flu Vaccine Could Spread Disease

Scientists in Britain say vaccinating poultry against the H5N1 strain of avian influenza could spread the disease faster if it is done badly.

Researchers from the universities of Edinburgh and Warwick found that when flocks are incompletely protected a phenomenon known as "silent spread" occurs. Fewer birds die so the virus is not detected as it spreads from farm to farm.


"If vaccination is to be used it needs to be done extremely well or it could make the problem worse, rather than better." (Nick Savill of the University of Edinburgh.)

***

Bird Flu in Japan Linked to Vaccine

Vaccines cannot completely eliminate infection; they just ease the symptoms - so vaccine use leads to disease outbreaks and new strains. The World Health Organization recommends against using bird flu vaccines in animals.

ed for sp


[edit on 27-8-2006 by soficrow]

Originally posted by SKMDC1
And that's basically what ID proponents are fighting for... to be given the chance to research ID on an equal footing with Evolution and come up with the "proof". Personally, I'm not interested in ID being taught in school. However, I do think the scientific community needs to get it's anterior segment out of it's Black Hole long enough to consider non-traditional explanations before demonizing those who are willing to think "outside the box."

They can research all they like, no-one is stopping ID research, the fight takes place on the benches and in journals, not in the political arena. The DI has massive amounts of funding, why don't they do some lab work? Some grant money has been offered to do research on ID, but no applications were made.

Most scientific theories earn their 'footing', why should ID just gain equality with ToE when there is little of substance in the scientific arena?

You/they can think outside the box till the cows come home, until real evidence is produced it has no credibility.

Evolution IS intelligent. Explain to me how it intelligently conforms to change? All things work within themselves. Evolution is intelligent, intelligence is evolution, We are intelligent. Evolution evolved intelligence, intelligence understands evolution. Lucidity.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by dgoodpasture]

mattison, the link you gave contains papers that attempt to disprove evolutionary theory.

do you not understand my question?

i want to know where evidence that independently supports ID theory exists. i want a paper that does not so much as reference the term darwinist.

i don't care if evolution is right or wrong, i care about scientific integrity. ID needs independant support.

so far, ID is a house of cards, not one piece of evidence can independantly support it.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Evolutionary theory is just that...a theory. It is not a proven fact, as there are flaws in the basic, unproven premise -- like the never found missing link between apes and man -- but it has its theoretical strengths.

The same applies to Intelligent Design (ID). It is nothing less and nothing more than a theory.

The probability of a Universe and life coming into being from pure chance alone is fantastically small and makes no sense.

The physical laws which govern the Universe illustrate an orderly process to ALL THAT IS, not a chaotic mess of matter and energy.

If the Universe were a chaotic mess of matter and energy, there could never be life on this planet.

Order to the Universe and the physical laws thereof implies a premeditated organizational strategy. A premeditated organizational strategy implies that there was a consciousness which initiated that order in the first place

The stance of those within the Judeo-Christian clergy who believe that Intelligent Design is an insult to God need to remember that it is only an insult to their conception of God. Not everyone believes in the Judeo-Christian god. Furthermore, one does not have to embrace an established monotheistic religion in order to agree with the basic premise of Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is very similar to the ideas found within Deism; basically defined as the belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
An ironic twist about Deism, quoted from the above site...

>

An argument against Intelligent Design is that it is really just a clever form of Creationism. Yet many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions were able to separate Creationism from Deism, while also being instrumental in furthering the principle of separation of church and state. So the argument that ID is simply Creationism in disguise and that it threatens the separation of church and state, simply doesn't wash.

In light of all of the above, Intelligent Design should be taught as a theory in schools just as Evolutionism is taught as a theory. In doing so, it should be emphasized that ID does not prove or espouse the existence or validity of the Judeo-Christian god or any other god representative of any traditional faith.

The main strength of Intelligent Design is that it logically points to a higher power having been responsible for the creation of an orderly Universe that enabled life to emerge. How one interprets that higher power should be up to the individual, not solely to the scientific community and not solely to the religious community.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by Paul_Richard]

If godlike entities exist they only care about the end product of life not the in between parts. Everything has to live on its own in order to survive. If not than life in of itself wouldnt be possible.