Theory of Intelligent Design

What do you think about Intelligent Design?

What do you think the merits of it are scientifically?

 

Natural selection IS a directed process

Intelligent design has zero scientific evidence
It fails a main test of science... it is not falsifiable
Fundamentally ID is simply a god of the gaps arguement

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theismbut rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1]

 

If Intelligent Design were real, what would be the explanation for Trump?

Intelligent Design is just another way for some to keep their imaginary friend into adulthood.

 

No, it is a biologically dependent mechanism that lacks a managed specific goal.

I guess you don't know what intelligent design is after all. If the features attributed to intelligent design were to be better explained by another phenomena, and that phenomena were to be observed and tested, then ID would be falsified. Any system that lacks design attributes and contains repeating natural process mechanisms fails the test of design.

Wow, how little people know about this theory...

 

I don't get how what you are saying here relates to this thread topic.

 

I looked into the concept of irreducible complexity a few years ago. It is an interesting argument that goes something like this. Some biochemical systems consist of many parts that lose their function when any one part is removed. We call them irreducibly complex. Their existence supposedly rules out the theory of evolution, because it relies on an accumulation of small changes that tend to persist only when they have some function on their own.

Unfortunately, this line of thinking is flawed. There are some alternate evolutionary paths that do not involve going from nothing to a whole irreducibly complex system in a single step. Parts can be deleted, which allows going from a system with more parts and a different function to an irreducibly complex one. Parts can change function or add a second function. In other words, some irreducily complex systems can be the result of evolution.

It may be unfair to compare a fledgling concept like intelligent design to a theory as fleshed out as the theory of evolution, but it's almost unavoidable, given the direct contradiction between the two. I would love to jump on an alternate bandwagon early, if it offers an improved understanding of the universe, but intelligent design shows little promise.

 

Religious implications be damned, (or excepted) be it ET or God, I am a believer in an intelligence being involved with life.

 

ID is simply the reaction to science and reality making Creation by God seem the foolish concept it is. Theists (Christians) realized the lost cause and renamed it in hopes the new one would fly.

Basically they lost faith and are trying to make up for it.

 

Limited. I’m not convinced by the argument that there are things best explained by an intelligent cause but even if that was the case, it doesn’t mean they are explained by an intelligent cause.

I think the cultural issues of Intelligent Design also pose most of the complications though. It was clearly conceived as an attempt to counter the perception that developing scientific theories were challenging or contradicting the existence of God and so very much based on the flawed principle of taking a conclusion and seeking evidence to back it up. While it has expanded and altered over time and is now used in more diverse ways, sometimes even by people with good intentions, the manner in which it’s approached by people is still coloured by that history.

I also think that with absolutely zero scientific indication of what that intelligence could be and so little interest from many proponents of ID in looking down that line, the “theory” can’t really get anywhere.

 

If that defines intelligent design, I could not buy it. But there are other ideas about intelligent design which embraces micro evolution, as put into place by intelligent design. Intelligent design then would have created the first self replicating organism, with an innate capacity to evolve into very complex life forms, eventually leading over millions of years, to hominids.

So there would be some kind of intelligent force involved in the creation of life, imbibed with what was needed to eventually evolve into complex life forms with a consciousness. This gets rid of the idea of happy accidents and chance. It also intimates a purpose, whatever that may be. So from the big bang onward, from the evolution of the universe, to finally the creation of life this was intentional, not chance. And since no scientist has ever proven chance was how life arose, they just created ideas about it, but cannot replicate it, this leave open the possibility for something else. And until they do create, using natural forces, life, they are not on firm ground. And it has to be a self replicating molecule, which can then move into a self replicating single cell organism. And they must start from scratch. This is hard evidence, it is PROOF that their ideas are valid, instead of scientists simply having a consensus without the evidence to back it up.

 

I can conjecture, and no one can refute this conjecture, that intelligence is seen at the quantum level. If physicists are correct in saying the atom is all about energy and INFORMATION. That information cannot be captured, and its source is not known. Where does this information come from? Of course physicists do not ask such questions. Although some retired ones do and have talked about it, away from academia. See that is the deal about physicists. Some will actually question a strict materialism, but generally after they leave academia, for to do so while in academia is a job killer. Tom Campbell thinks we live in a virtual reality, created by something outside this universe. He got that idea from quantum mechanics. He would say this information is what creates reality when it uses energy, and there is an intelligence involved, coming from outside space, time, matter. It can be seen at work at the quantum level. And it is manifesting the universe from moment to moment kinda similar to a video game. But the problem is, it would take another physicist to debate with Campbell, and no one perhaps could ever do that here. But even if you were a physicist here, you would never negate what Campbell says, with evidence.

 

I would like to applaud all the deep thinkers that attack the concept of intelligent design, They promote many concepts that are quite impressive until they meet that dead end, From there they precede with something us Bible Thumpers have found long ago....Faith.
Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.
Why this reluctance to admit to and finally embrace Faith? It is my belief that human nature has an innate desire to explain ALL things. In doing that, they believe they can finally dispel all Faith in a Supreme being and be god's to themselves. If one would study merely the Book of Genisis, they would find the inclination of that nature was with us from the time we developed this mass between our two ears!

 

The notion that there are features of the universe that are best explained by intelligent design...is an absurdity. It has no scientific or logical merits.

The notion that there is an intelligent designer (a god)...is a blind guess. That blind guess has proponents who attempt to find ways to pretend it is not a blind guess. That notion is one of those attempts.

Incidentally, the notion that there is NO INTELLIGENT DESIGNER (no gods)...also is a blind guess. That blind guess has proponents who attempt to mock the proponents mentioned above...in an attempt to pretend the blind guess of "no gods exist" is something more than just a blind guess.

 

From a scientific point of view, it's not a theory. A theory is a hypothesis reinforced either by successfull prediction or prooves.

"A manages specific goal".

Their is a "goal" for live : continue to exist.

It's not really a scientific hypothesis, it's just a religious belief. I don't say it's bad, but their is no link with scientific thinking.

 

Suppose we say that there is an intelligence behind the creation of the universe. That really doesn't get us any closer to the motive for such creation.

Is human life just a by-product and not the main goal of said creation? Is the universe a petri-dish experiment with the goal being to see grows? Is it a version 2.0 and the creator is now on version 6.5?

It kind of cracks me up when people think, "If we can just disprove evolution, then that will prove the existence of my God." Hilarious really.

 

If we were created, who created the creator (be it ET or God)?

 

You've got it backwards, but if it "cracks you up" ....go with it.
If you can just disprove God, then that will prove the existence of evolution. The fossil record doesn't even back you up.

 

He is from the beginning and from a realm our current minds will never understand....except by faith.
Those of us that Believe will see something better. Without "faith" it is impossible to please Him.

 

This question always makes me laugh, because the people asking it seem to think it is such a zinger.

If we were not created...it means we always were.

So if we were not created...you have already established that something can "always have been."

Why not a creator god...a god that "always had been"...but that made this thing we humans call "the universe?"

Why not?

 

The existence of evolution is already proven. Whether a god exists or not has no bearing on evolution. And yes, the fossil records backs it up.

 

this is special pleading.

believing in something with exactly zero evidence to support its existence is just silly.

 

because that is special pleading

 

What is special pleading?

 

By treating your many mere assertions as "evidence"...excuse me... as "hard evidence" you are presenting a false equivalence.

 

Let's clarify some terminology.
Intelligent Design is exactly the same as Creationism. The only difference is that the proponents of Creationism changed the wording in order to try to get around the illegality of teaching Creationism in public schools. That failed.

The Genesis story in the bible is an example of Creationism/Intelligent Design (C/ID).

So, you question boils down to "What do you think about the reality of Genesis?" Shouldn't you have posted this thread in the Religion Section?