DNAunion

DNAunion: Yes, no, maybe, some..., well....

ID is a kind of grab bag (at least for now). Lots of different individual viewpoints all covered by the same blanket term.

Now, when Michael Denton wrote his newest book - which stopped expressing doubts about evolution and started pointing out the way nature seemed to be fit for life - many "IDists" felt he had "defected" or something. There was even a round table discussion by the "leaders of ID" about, basically, what should be done with Mr. Denton (kind of, keep him around or boot him out).

Also, a few years ago I read in the controversial ID text "Of Pandas and People" a statement that went something like, "All intelligent design proponents hold that every species was created", or something along those lines. That is simply not the case (can someone construct a self-strawman?!?!?).

The amount of room individual IDists leave for purely natural processes varies a great deal, and some have no problem with evolution at all and feel ID would only come in for the origin of life.

Although arguments for divine fine-tuning of the Universe are in line with ID, in general, ID is about biology, not cosmology or physics.

And since you are looking for clarification on what ID is, I should point out what it is not. ID is not the same thing as Creationism. I will give only one reason, but it is sufficient. Creationism requires that the designer be none other than the Biblical God. Now, of course, many IDists are Christians who are neither Creationists nor theistic evolutionists, and their designer is the Biblical God also. But.... A person of another religion could be an IDist, in which case it would be a different God. And one can be agnostic and still be an IDist. In fact, someone could even be an atheist and still be considered an IDist, loosely (if that person believed the explanation for the appearance of life on Earth was ETIs, for example. And no, I'm not talkin about me.). ID can be religion-neutral or even religion-miminal, whereas Creationism cannot.

theyeti

That's very well put. To add to the comentary, there is no ID theory currently put forth by the ID movement. There is an ID argument that claims that "design", whatever it is, can be detected by science. There are an infinite number of theories that can fit under the design argument, but the argument by itself, even if true, is uninformative to science. By simply slapping the "design" label on living things, you haven't actually advanced any understanding. To be a scientific theory, IDists would, at the very least, have to theorize about the who, what, when, why, and how of design. (And there are other qualities that a scientific theory needs too, like testability.) This is something that they steadfastly refuse to do, even going so far as to say that this would be unscientific! They would rather religion answer those questions -- they're not really interested in science at all.

We do know some of what individual IDists believe is the proper ID theory, and from what we can tell, they are terribly inconsistent with each other, and this is true even of the leaders of the movement. Paul Nelson is a YEC. Philip Johnson is an OEC. Micheal Behe is an evolutionist. At least two of these people are flat out wrong on one or more major points of their theories. But this doesn't stop them from putting up the appearance of consensus, and they never, ever criticize each other. They put forth the appearance as if there is just one monolithic ID theory that they all acribe to. But when someone criticizes one of these theories, they just say that ID doesn't really say that, and that they're being misrepresented. ID is just plain vaccuous.

theyeti

Bubba

The problem I have with it is even if you could work up Demski's idiocy to prove design you still wouldn't prove the existance of God. For example, design could be one of several things...

1. Inherent in a self existant universe (kind of the non-thiest view.).

2. The universe could kind of have a collective mind of its own (eastern panthiestic religious view.) which would explain the design present.

3. Design could be "frontloaded" at the creation of the universe (the view of people like Michael Denton, Kenneth Miller, myself, Geo Theo, most of the other Christians such as Amie, Helen, and Rev. Joshua that post here, etc.)(Classical thiestic evolution, in other words)

4. The universe could be frontloaded and have a continually present providential force. This would be the view of Dennis Lameraux, who posted under the Darwin and God at the U thread. His debate with arch idiot Phil Johnson is available through the II bookstore and is very telling of just how intellectually bankrupt the arn/ID crowd is.

5. Design could be part of a continuous creative/evolving process where a creator sometimes directly shows his cards (Hugh Ross type creationism).

6. Design could be part of a YEC process or part of a process used by an invisible Pink Unicorn to create the universe five minutes ago.

Thus I'm not really sure that the concept of ID is of any theological value and it is of no scientific value at all. And everybody sees at least some form of design to the universe. So really the question "does the univere show design? is itself meaningless.

Chris

theyeti

And even if you could prove the existance of God, you still wouldn't legitimize the ID movement's cultural adgenda. Only specific theological doctrine could do that. But IDists argue that ID cannot tell who the designer is, much less which particular belief about it is true. They've suceeded in arguing away the whole point of their movement.

theyeti

thebeave

Well, now that I think about it a little more, its not totally out of the question that a simple bacteria could have been planted here by an ETI. My only guess as to how you could make a case against it is by examining what we believe to be the earliest, most unchanged, primitive bacteria around (perhaps those living on H2S at thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean?) and make an educated guess as to whether its gene structure is evident of an intelligent designer, or if the gene structure is typical of an evolutionary development (e.g. junk DNA, etc). Even then I don't think you could be conclusive about it. But then again I'm a total neophyte in this area.

CALDONIA

Intelligent Design is God in a lab coat, with a slide rule.

Darwin's Beagle

I believe the core of ID theory is as follows:

There are things in the universe that show complexity that could not have arisen by natural means, thus, it must have arisen by some type of directing intelligence.

"Evidence" for this consists of philosophical and some mathematical arguments attempting to show that natural means (usually defined as some type of random process directed toward obtaining a specified goal) is untenable to accomplish this.

There is a great deal of disagreement within the ID camp as to just exactly what to include in the set of all things "that show complexity that could not have arisen by natural means". And there seems to be active avoidance of any attempt to identify the intelligence behind the design or the mechanism that the intelligence may have used to create the design. And because of this it makes the theory pretty much useless even if it happens to be correct (which if anyone is wondering, I don't think it is).

Shadowy Man

But I repeat that this is not a theory. My point in starting this thread was to point out that there is no actual theory behind the "intelligent design theory" and that they use the word "theory" to try to gain some kind of legitimacy. In the same sense as they talk about "creation science".

Bubba

Beave I agree but the problem I have is that if intelligent beings planted life here 3.8 billion years ago and left no forwarding address, then ID theory isn't of much practical good now, is it?

I of course don't think anyone here is saying that solution is impossible, just highly unlikely.

ID theory seems to be one thing to me, and one thing only-designed to deny common descent which is well supported in the fossil record and in the genetic evidence that we have.

In Darwin

Chris

Darwin's Beagle

Whether or not one considers it a "theory" depends ultimately upon semantics. I suppose I am a little more lenient with the terminology than you. ID purports to explain a certain type of complexity. It purports to have justification for that belief. To me, that is enough to grant it the title of "theory", just as I grant Spontaneous Generation (the maggots-from-dead-meat-type) and "space-occupying ether" the titles of "theories".

However, I do not grant that there is ANY substance behind the theory. Without a reasonable intelligence and without a mechanism behind the creation ID is essentially useless.