Intelligent design - thoughts and resources?

[T Roosevelt]

My impression is that it is back-door creationism, an attempt to put a scientific face on a religious myth.

What are the arguments for and against?

[sui generis]

1. It IS creationism by another name

There are no rational scientific arguments for it - debating intelligent design versus evolutionary theory is apples and oranges starting with broad scientific principles.

The first idea it violates is the arbitrary assumption of a vast intelligence overseeing everything without any posited or proven tests to indicate that might be so, and with a preponderance of evidence clearly stating that it is not so.

Like everything else, it requires an absurd leap of "faith" and remains unprovable, and in scientific terms, faith is another word for irrational thinking.

It's ridiculous to even pretend that Intelligent Design is a scientific explanation.

[ladjf]

2. Intelligent design is a religious belief. How could such a thin

position be put into a school curriculum? Once the statement of belief has been presented, it's over. There's nothing behind the statement to back it up, just more people's statements who intuitively
feel that such is the case. What an absurdity!

[sui generis]

3. that's why I agree with putting stickers in the textbooks

So for Creationism I think we should put a sticker in that says "Creationism is a fairy tale like the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, and has been included in this textbook for entertainment value only."

[ladjf]

5. Your joke is entertaining. However, the real joke is that there

are people in positions of influence who are attempting to have the
"theory of creationism" put into school textbooks as an equal counter-argument to the "theory of evolution". Those who propose this are so
ignorant of science they are unaware that in the event that got their way (and I think it will happen in many schools), there would be no science to back up their pet "theory". The theory of evolution has been confirmed in countless scientific studies. Creationism, a religious belief, has only the intuition of those who believe it to be true. That's not science. That's superstition.

I'm not too worried about this issue specially. The troublesome thing is that is shows how many ignorant people we have who are in
positions of influence with regard to eduction.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

4. thoughts

"intelligent design" is actually rational in a couple of regards. It is rational in the sense that it is an attempt at a rebuttal against the findings of science - from those who typically believe that science is at odds with their faith. It seeks to preserve some semblance of the way humans used to perceive the world. Evolutionary thought was threatening, so "intelligent design" is a rational response.

What i find funny is that those who claim to have so much "faith" desire to see so much "proof of Creation". What's even funnier than that is they can't see themselves becoming deists in the process - despite the fact that they often consider deists at the bottom of the faithful totem pole.

[ladjf]

6. Right. If would could accept that they are Deists, then the idea

of intelligent design would "square" with the theory of Evolution.
In other words, Evolution is the process that intelligent design chose as the method to create life. I don't know why they don't jump on that argument. Then they could claim that science is corroborating the existence of God. We may all be playing the game of semantics.

[BurtWorm]

7. But ID's ultimate aim is to validate the inerrancy of the Bible

It's not about getting at the truth, but about justifying faith in the "word of God." This is why they will never ever concede the likely truth of natural selection.

[ladjf]

10. Anyone who takes the position that the Bible is the literal

word of the creator of everything is going to lose the argument on the grounds of there being no logical proof. And if one is going to base their argument on "faith" then they are admitting that they have no valid or real argument. It amazes me that in the face of such simple logic, millions are willing to ignore their natural faculties
of reason and replace that with blatant superstitious fantasies.

[Ready4Change]

8. I think it's an improvement on religious theory.

To me, religion is a way to comfort those who are uncomfortable with unknowns. The idea of creationism was brought about by human lack of knowledge regarding our worlds origins. It got brewed into an inflexible religious doctrine and failed to keep pace with rational knowledge.

To me, intelligent design is an attempt to break out, at least for a moment, from the inflexibility of creationism. We currently have well supported ideas regarding biological evolution, , stellar development, the original universe creating big bang and the ways that the laws of physics we've observed happened in those earliest of moments.

But what we DON'T have is an answer for why that is all so. What sparked the big bang? What enforces the rules of physics? If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? People wonder what lies beyond the edges of science, and some of those people can't handle the answer "We don't know." It sooths them to think there's a purpose behind it all, even though there is no real evidence to back up that idea.

[BurtWorm]

9. Many ID proponents argue that the chief "scientific" question is about God

http://www.origins.org/articles/00site_ourfocus2.html

"We believe the primary issue of contention in science and our culture is not when or how God created, but if God created--is there a Creator at all other than blind natural forces."


This ID Website, unlike more sophisticated ones, wears its fundamentalism on its sleeve.

[Ready4Change]

11. Like many ultra-religious groups/people...

They project their main concerns as EVERYONES main concerns. So they think scientists are looking to find god. And perhaps evil scientists are looking to disprove god.

They ignore or discount the possibility that a responsible scientist is looking for whatever is. Period.

[Tesibria]

12. .. hold a bit ...

I just got my Amazon order of 6 books on the subject ... will check back in once I'm thru them :)

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. It is a religious belief, as is my own belief, which is theistic evolution

-----------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[FM Arouet666]

14. Not so intelligent

"Intelligent design" is the neocreationist's way of injecting the same tired rhetoric into the science curriculum. The proposal is that a higher power played a role in creating the physical world, to include evolution and universal origins. The hypothesis is not testable and, therefore, is invalid from a scientific perspective. I could just as easily propose that we were all created 10 seconds ago, complete with past memories. Just as nonsensical, but, if this were the case, I would have to ask the creator why he created the GOP. :evilgrin:

[mcg]

15. Proponents of ID vary, its meaning varies.

For some people it is back-door Creationism (here meaning the usual meaning of Creationism, including The Flood, Adam and Eve, etc.), for others it is something different. There are actually several different viewpoints.

The way I see it, a central issue is whether 'guided' genetic changes have happened and if so, where did the 'guidance' come from. Can this be tested? It gets a bit tricky, because if 'guided' cannot be tested for, than neither can 'unguided'.

A more accessible question is whether there are certain structures in organisms with interdependent parts that cannot be built up through a series of gradual beneficial mutations (termed 'irreducible complexity'). Don't think that this is a trivial issue, Darwin himself addressed it (he thought no). When asking that question, what is meant by 'gradual'? Can 'gradual' be put in scientific terms? How can that question be answered? Even answering the gradualness question wouldn't truly resolve the question about guidance or even necessarily how evolution actually happened.

Then there is the fossil record. Taken at face value, the fossil record seems to suggest the sudden appearance of many species. Is that because they really did appear suddenly, or because the intermediate forms were not fossilized, or because we haven't found them?

Imo, the gradualness question is where the debate really gets interesting.

Speaking of evolution, here's an interesting subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory

[Fleurs du Mal]

16. God of the Gaps

Intelligent design is just another "god of the gaps" theory to stop the slow and steady erosion of creationism by the ever mounting empirical evidence. I think Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, for instance, goes quite a long way in dispelling with this fantasy.