What is Intelligent design?

[creekster]

WHat is Intelligent Design? Is it the mere suggestion that God was the prime mover, if you will? (I didn't think so.) Or is it the idea that whatever role evolution plays in speciation there are certain organic structures (the eye, for example) that are eveidcne of a creator becasue the could not have evolved to their present state? Or is it something else?

How are most you defining this term when you use it?

[ERCougar]

WHat is Intelligent Design? Is it the mere suggestion that God was the prime mover, if you will? (I didn't think so.) Or is it the idea that whatever role evolution plays in speciation there are certain organic structures (the eye, for example) that are eveidcne of a creator becasue the could not have evolved to their present state? Or is it something else?

How are most you defining this term when you use it?

I think the traditional Intelligent Design advocate believes that the gaps and questions that we haven't answered about evolution indicate that there is a prime mover behind it. Is that what others would say about it?

Like I said in the other thread, I like the questions they raise, but I don't like the answers they give.

[CardiacCoug]

When I think of the intelligent design argument, I think of the argument expressed in the book Darwin's Black Box -- basically that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex." It is the argument that since the eye and the clotting cascade are useless if even one out of dozens of components is absent, that an intelligent designer (God) must have created them.

[woot]

When I think of the intelligent design argument, I think of the argument expressed in the book Darwin's Black Box -- basically that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex." It is the argument that since the eye and the clotting cascade are useless if even one out of dozens of components is absent, that an intelligent designer (God) must have created them.

That's basically it. Irreducible complexity is one of their major points, and one of the things that is most easily debunked. They officially refuse to acknowledge god as the intelligent designer since their goal is to subvert the establishment clause and they must separate themselves from religion. The Dover trial showed that they really are nothing but creationism disguised in a lab coat. Look up "cdesign proponentsists" for a hilarious blunder by the creationists/ID folk on this issue. Most of the individual proponents of ID are very forth-coming in admitting that the designer is god, but they just can't acknowledge that officially.

There's really nothing more to it than that. They have no goals, they have no idea what they actually want scientists to do, since if they had their way scientists would throw their hands up and say "Yep, it makes more sense that god done it" and stop researching anything. It really is the god of the gaps, and it's a philosophy that won't last long.

I find ID to be a distinct philosophy from the also common philosophy already expressed here of a sort of non-interventionist god who is in charge but uses purely natural means. While it is a form of ID, it is not a position that benefits or agrees with basically any of the ID platform, which is strictly anti-evolution with the exception of Michael Behe, who has been on the outs with that crowd since admitting that evolution explains most everything, but has just a few (vacuous) nitpicks that don't help anything and don't further the real debate one bit.

[CardiacCoug]

I find ID to be a distinct philosophy from the also common philosophy already expressed here of a sort of non-interventionist god who is in charge but uses purely natural means. While it is a form of ID, it is not a position that benefits or agrees with basically any of the ID platform, which is strictly anti-evolution with the exception of Michael Behe, who has been on the outs with that crowd since admitting that evolution explains most everything, but has just a few (vacuous) nitpicks that don't help anything and don't further the real debate one bit.

I didn't know that Michael Behe had pissed off his base. I think Behe is a smart guy and an excellent writer. But he's obviously wrong with the irreducible complexity argument. I sort of wonder if he knows he's wrong, too.

[woot]

I didn't know that Michael Behe had pissed off his base. I think Behe is a smart guy and an excellent writer. But he's obviously wrong with the irreducible complexity argument. I sort of wonder if he knows he's wrong, too.

I've wondered that myself. I think it was within the last year or two that he publicly admitted that evolution explains mostly everything. The Discovery Institute hasn't really done much with him since, to my knowledge. Some of the rebuttals to his nonsense have been hilarious, so I don't mind having him around, but you'd think he'd get sick of being wrong all the time. I guess when you make your money publishing that dreck it's hard to stop.

[RobinFinderson]

The Dover case and ID were the subject of the most recent episode of Nova, on PBS. HERE is the link. I have it on DVR, and caught the last few minutes of it last night, but haven't been able to watch the whole program yet. It should be on during the rest of the week, so if people want to see it, they might look for it. The video for this episode is not yet online.

[SeattleUte]

I've read several articles by scientists that argue ID is the latest version of Creationism masquerading as science.

I think it may have a role in education not in science curricula but in the humanities. I see it as a philosophy, not science.

[woot]

The Dover case and ID were the subject of the most recent episode of Nova, on PBS. HERE is the link. I have it on DVR, and caught the last few minutes of it last night, but haven't been able to watch the whole program yet. It should be on during the rest of the week, so if people want to see it, they might look for it. The video for this episode is not yet online.

I would strongly second this recommendation. I saw the whole thing when it came out (wasn't that like a year ago now? Or is this an updated version?) and they really do a smashing job. I was somewhat perplexed by their inclusion of Tiktaalik in the proceedings, since it didn't seem very relevant, but I love the whole story behind its discovery and am immensely fascinated by the fossils they've found of it so far so I didn't mind it too much.

[UtahDan]

[YOUTUBE]cO1a1Ek-HD0[/YOUTUBE]

This video is not new but is new to me. I'm curious to ask the LDS intelligentsia on this board whether it is pretty much the thoughtful Mormon position at this point that the mechanism of creation was/is evolution. Is there any other rational argument to be made from the faithful perspective?