Isn't intelligent design basically Deism?

[Quixote1818]

Intelligent design is not creationism because it seems to suggest an evolutionary process. Creationism is right out of the Bible saying the earth was created in a few days. Poof! Their was man! Intelligent design seems to be very different and more complex than this. Or am I missing something as I don't know much about it?

Deism (the belief system of many of our Founding Fathers) http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm was that a Creator made the Universe and built in the laws of Nature then let it take it's own course. How is that different from intelligent design? I know Deism is not based on Science but a belief system (human intuition) however the Founders understood this yet they found the idea made sense to them. If this is what intelligent design is I don't have a problem with it as a belief system but it doesn't seem to be based on testable science so I don't think it should be taught in schools. However, I think it's an interesting idea and as an open minded person it's something I will consider for my own belief system even if it can't be tested by science and human reason. The idea that something came from nothing can't be tested by science either. In other words, how we got here is a great mystery! When time began is a great mystery as well.

I hope people will keep an open mind EVEN when things such as intelligent design can't be tested by science they still could have some merit. Some ideas are beyond human Reason and into the realm of human intuition. Intuition is certainly not fool proof but an ability every human has and should use keeping in mind his/her intuition could be wrong. Remember, every hypothesis is born out of human intuition. Some hypothesis CANT be tested by science but does that make them wrong or just beyond our current ability's of discovery? For instance the idea of the existence of a God. It seems to me that intelligent design is outside the realm of science and in the realm of untestable intuition. Since it can't be tested it can't be proved but it also can't be disproved.

Creationism on the other hand CAN be tested and HAS been disproved many, many times. The probability of creationism being true based on scientific observation is basically ZERO! It seems to me the probability of intelligent design can't be determined one way or another. It's basically Evolution set in motion by God as opposed to Evolution with no known starting mechanism because science does not take a stance on God.

Now, any scientists who are up on this fill me in on anything I am missing. Thanks

[longship]

1. ID sets up an artificial wall of separation

between micro- and macro-evolution. The Xtian wackos cannot deny that evolution exists since there is ample experimental evidence that it happens. So they claim, "Oh no!! That's micro-evolution." and then demand direct experimental evidence for new species evolving. Of course, this is a pack of dingo's kidneys. It's a shell game.

There is not a single shred of evidence that such a wall exists. What process would limit genetic change once it starts? To the IDer, it's God. To the scientist, it is nothing.

[Quixote1818]

2. So it's different from Deism then. Let me see if I have this right

It seems you are suggesting ID says that God created the Earth and all it's creatures instantly but allowed for "micro" evolution to occur. If so then I think it's complete BS!

[longship]

14. That's correct.

They can't admit that macro-evolution happens since that would fairly well be admitting that ID isn't necessary, so they have to construct this complex, bullshit wall of separation.

One of their favorite targets is the human eye which they claim is "perfect". (n.b., it isn't; the cephalopod eye is much better "designed".) Of course, vision has separately evolved at least a dozen times here on earth.

Special pleading is their favorite technique. It's all bullshit. The sole purpose is to get a creationism-like thing into science classrooms, all because they think evolution conflicts with the bible.

[CatholicEdHead]

19. They ignore the scientific method

In their eyes if a "theory" is not 100% proven it has to be false. Whereas in the scientific method definition of "theory", it is the best solution the data at the time can lead you two. As more data is found/obtained, you then adjust the theory.

[kestrel91316]

3. People should not be pressured to ..................

believe in a "creator" if they don't WANT to believe in a "creator". Why can't some folks just accept that atheism is a legitimate alternative to religion?

Disclaimer: I am probably a Deist.

[Quixote1818]

4. I agree, however an open mind is the most important thing in my opinion

No one should be pressured either way but left to come to their own conclusions based on their own investigation ability to reason starting with an open mind.

[Selatius]

5. Deism defined:

Deism (n): Belief in God as revealed by nature and reason combined with a disbelief in scripture, prophets, superstition and church authority.

Deism is a free-thought philosophy, much like Agnosticism, Atheism or Pantheism in that it rejects the dogmas and superstitions of religion in favor of individual reason and empirical observation of the universe. Deism differs from these other free-thought philosophies in that it sees an order and architecture to the universe that indicates a Creator. The word "God" is used to describe this creator, not to be confused with the "Biblegod."

Deism notes that we as humans are endowed with the power of reason and an indomitable spirit. It follows that we are intended to exercise them. Therefore, skepticism and doubt are not "sins" but rather natural expressions of God's gift of reason.

Because skepticism and doubt are not sins, Deists view with extreme suspicion any efforts by other humans to claim divine authority, such as claiming to be a "prophet" or citing "sacred scripture" said to be written by alleged prophets (as in the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc.). Placing faith in scriptures, prophets, priests, churches, "holy" figures, or traditions is surrendering your personal reason to another source. Usually, this other source has far less interest in "the state of your soul" as the accumulation of wealth and political power.

With scripture and revelation removed, all that remains to know God is personal reason and observation of the universe. Essentially, this is getting to know the artist by studying the artwork. The only "Word of God" is the universe itself.

Deism has had many famous advocates throughout history, particularly during the Age of Enlightenment. Some of the most famous American examples were many of the Founding Fathers of America. Contrary to the assertions of Christian Fundamentalists today, America was not founded on Christian ideals. "Nature's God", as invoked by the Declaration of Independence, is a reference to Deism.

http://www.deism.org/

[omega minimo]

8. Sounds like Buddeism

:evilgrin:

or Deip Ecology

[tocqueville]

6. could be aliens

Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion which states that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by positing an intelligent designer. The majority of ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be. However, ID advocate William Dembski in his book "The Design Inference"<1> lists God or an alien life force as two possible options. Despite ID sometimes being called Intelligent Design Theory, the scientific community does not recognise ID as a scientific theory and considers it to be creationist pseudoscience. Both the Intelligent Design concept and the associated movement have come under considerable criticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

[bridgit]

7. not imo; "intelligent design" is as much an advertising ploy...

as "struggle against extremism" vs the now oh-so-tired & supremely ill-conceived: 'war on terrorism', it is a side stepping tap dance @ best

[wli]

9. Intelligent Design as a movement is an apologist affair

Deism is a non-Christian belief in a non-interventionist deity.

"Intelligent design" is also the name of an argument for the existence of a deity originally devised by Thomas Aquinas, and later William Paley made the famous "watchmaker" analogy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Let me take a crack at this

ID relies on the bible to explain this purely,

Deism believes in a watchmaker independent from any system of religious belief who basically created teh world, winded it up as it were, and then stood back... there is no morality involved, or ethical value, or even need for a faith.

ID has all those elements.

And that is in a nutshell

[Guaranteed]

17. Intelligent design as it is being used by the right wing is

based on the Bible.

The original philosophical concept has nothing to do with the Bible. It was, similarly, advocated by many religious scholars, centuries ago, but they advocated it using logical concepts, not dogma.

[Maestro]

11. You might be correct

But fundies will use this to get creationism in schools, period.

[RONSTOO]

12. we are a bad experiment gone amok

but our creators wish they were us

[Ladyhawk]

13. And Deism, when it comes down to it, works the same way as atheism.

Deism is the belief that a god created the universe, then stepped back to let things take their own course. Deism and atheism come down to the same thing: There is no god who cares about our individual lives. So, it really makes no difference whether you believe in an absent god or no god at all.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus

So, who gives a rip? :)

[Ms. Toad]

15. Intelligent design is being promoted as science,

not as a belief system.

To take it away from evolution, the only context in which it is being promoted, there are numbers, or series of numbers that magically show up all over the place. Pi, for example, shows up in virtually every formula for calculating the particulars of anything round. The golden mean shows up in the ratios of various parts of the human body, the internal coils of various shells, some ancient architecture, and a host of other places. The fibonacci series pops up all over the place and its diagonal or horizontal rows are used in a number of intricate mathematical calculations.

Math/science provides the formulas, observes and predicts things which contain the golden mean, and exploits the fibonacci series for the benefit of simplifying a wide range of mathematical exercises.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, says the equivalent of "Wow, isn't it awesome that pi, the golden mean, fibonacci series, and other 'magical' numbers or patterns show up repeatedly. Can't just be coincidence. Must have been some really cool dude to create those intricate and predictable patterns - since otherwise we should just have chaos."

The two are are not competing theories - one observes and reduces miracles to set of formulas and rules. The other marvels and proclaims the miraculous nature of what has been observed.

Disclaimer: I'm a believer in the "one cool dude" theory - I just happen to believe that a dude (or dudette) cool enough to envision snowflakes, birth, flaming sunsets, and rainbows (just to name a few) is cool enough to go about creating the varieties of life on earth using tools such as evolution - and to have given us brains to figure that out. I just don't want the "one cool dude" theory taught as science - or in my local public school.

[DanCa]

16. another reason i am against it and the pro life movement

There starting up thier own modern church.

[H2O Man]

18. Yes, it is.

I.D. is worthy of consideration, but that consideration does not extend into public schools. It is not science. However, science should not be limited to the classroom: people who believe in intelligent design have just as much appreciation for science as do any other group that recognizes the need to keep all religion out of public schools.

[Maat]

20. I'm a member of both a UU church and Church of Religious Science.

It sounds like Church of Religious Science definitely has a deist flavor.

Ernest Holmes, the founder, was known as the Great Synthesizer, who saw no conflict between evolution, science and belief in God.


God is within and without; we are each an individual expression of God, who divided itself up. Our job is to experience for God. God designed the whole system, and stepped back. God's infinite power can be accessed through prayer-meditation, and the Universe (God) will unemotionally give one what one asks for.

www.rsintl.org

So, I see a deist influence in my belief system, definitely.

I see the deist philosophy/belief-system as just that; and I have no objection about it being taught in a theology-philosophy-type class. I do not, however, believe that it should be taught as science.

I also separate the deist philosophy of intelligent design type and nature, from anything Falwell is backing (his version of intelligent design). If one is a rightwinger, and one is backing a certain version, I'm very suspicious and smell political-sociological manipulation.

Thanks for the post; it is thought-provoking.

[Tux]

21. As a Deist

No, ID isn't true Deism. ID can work with Islam, Christinaity, Judaism, or anything else.

Another problem is ID tends to be theistic. Theists believe that God is involved with the Universe and interacts with it. Deists tend to believe that Deity does very, very little to nothing with the Universe other than make it.

ID supporters do agree with evolution but as guided by God and not previous events that lead to present conditions.

[Tux]

22. As a Deist

No, ID isn't true Deism. ID can work with Islam, Christinaity, Judaism, or anything else.

Another problem is ID tends to be theistic. Theists believe that God is involved with the Universe and interacts with it. Deists tend to believe that Deity does very, very little to nothing with the Universe other than make it.

ID supporters do agree with evolution but as guided by God and not previous events that lead to present conditions.

[Random_Australian]

23. It is called ID for a reason - and that is to hide that it is not a theory

or even a hypothesis; science has standards for that, I summarise them here (in a now-defunct thread)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=247&topic_id=6580&mesg_id=6581

[sutz12]

24. Actually, Evolution is closer to Deism than ID

Deism basically says that God started it all off, but has been pretty hands off since. Under that rubrik, one could say that God created the first organism, and all else came from that. No scientist would put it that way, but there you have it. I would think a Deist would be fine with evolution. After all, scientists are a little bit perplexed about how the first 'living' thing came about. They have some pretty good guesses, but that one instance is what the Creationists/ID'ers hand their hat on.

ID requires an active God that steps in to handle the 'heavy lifting' when evolution can't get the job done. You know, the old, "Every creature was blind until God designed it's eyes" line. It has the distinction of being both pseudo-science and pseudo-religion. :)