ID is evitable.

The Pixie

Well-known member
The scientific theory of Intelligent Design is not a faith based doctrine but rather a scientific based theory that posits that our existence came from some intelligent agent rather than unguided random processes (naturalism).
This is a great definition of ID. It tells us essentially nothing about what it actually proposes. Was life created 6000 years ago or several billion? ID cannot and will not say either way. So what exactly do they want to teach in schools about what actually happened?

Nothing.

The important bit is "rather than unguided random processes (naturalism)". That is what creationists care about, and that is why virtually all ID/creationism arguments come down to trying to refute evolution.

They do not claim to know the identity of this designing agent and do not pick out any particular religion but claim that the designing influence can be scientifically measured.
But that is not true, is it Cisco?

The vast majority of IDists do claim to know the identity. You even said "I myself am Bible based and believe that the Creator is Yahweh".

IDists say out of one side of their mouths that "They do not claim to know the identity of this designing agent" and out of the other side they say "I myself am Bible based and believe that the Creator is Yahweh".

I myself am Bible based and believe that the Creator is Yahweh who expressed Himself in bodily form as Jesus as prophetized in the OT.
Thanks for proving your claim about ID is wrong.

I mean, we all knew it already, but for so many years IDists pretended otherwise, so this is progress I guess.

But naturalism and unguided Darwinism (although I do respect Charles Darwin as a researcher and a scientist) is taking over the mind of our young people in a school system which has outlawed prayer and does not allow anything contrary to neo-darwinism to be taught in the schools.
Evolution is taught because the evidence indicates it is true.

It is as simple as that.

There is a scientific alternative which is more palatable to Christian doctrine, ID, but it too has been outlawed from the school system ( see Kitzmiller v. Dover ). But way, when is the alternative ever outlawed in any forum?
A school is not a forum. In a forum, there is a two-way flow of information, in a school the flow is from teacher to student.

Children in schools should be taught mainstream science, not whatever crackpot nonsense the teacher believes. And evolution is mainstream stream science.

The real issue here is why IDists want to teach ID as though it is mainstream science before they have the evidence to support it. And the reason for that is because it really is a "faith based doctrine", despite IDists claims to the contrary.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
This is a great definition of ID. It tells us essentially nothing about what it actually proposes. Was life created 6000 years ago or several billion? ID cannot and will not say either way. So what exactly do they want to teach in schools about what actually happened?

Nothing.
They have given up trying to teach in the schools, Dover settled that. The ID message is that life happened over billions of years but was guided - the same as Theistic evolution whose member's publications and peer reviews seem to be acceptable to your side of the scientific community. The difference with ID is that of evidence for design. If, indeed, life were designed or guided then why would there not be evidence and why ostracize efforts to detect that design.
The important bit is "rather than unguided random processes (naturalism)". That is what creationists care about, and that is why virtually all ID/creationism arguments come down to trying to refute evolution.
You said it yourself, ID is the enemy of naturalism and only the enemy of evolution in its naturalistic form. Evolution that involves RMNS, genetic drift works well with ID.
But that is not true, is it Cisco?

The vast majority of IDists do claim to know the identity. You even said "I myself am Bible based and believe that the Creator is Yahweh".

IDists say out of one side of their mouths that "They do not claim to know the identity of this designing agent" and out of the other side they say "I myself am Bible based and believe that the Creator is Yahweh".


Thanks for proving your claim about ID is wrong.

I mean, we all knew it already, but for so many years IDists pretended otherwise, so this is progress I guess.
Personal beliefs are not part of the theory. Even some of your own people have personal beliefs. Ken Miller is a devout Catholic, Francis Collins is a born again christian.
Evolution is taught because the evidence indicates it is true.

It is as simple as that.


A school is not a forum. In a forum, there is a two-way flow of information, in a school the flow is from teacher to student.

Children in schools should be taught mainstream science, not whatever crackpot nonsense the teacher believes. And evolution is mainstream stream science.

The real issue here is why IDists want to teach ID as though it is mainstream science before they have the evidence to support it. And the reason for that is because it really is a "faith based doctrine", despite IDists claims to the contrary.
The real issue is why neo-darwinists are so adamantly opposed to any research that hints of design.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
They have given up trying to teach in the schools, Dover settled that.
And rightly so. A court of law established that it is a religious position, and not science. And nothing has changed since then.

The ID message is that life happened over billions of years but was guided - the same as Theistic evolution whose member's publications and peer reviews seem to be acceptable to your side of the scientific community. The difference with ID is that of evidence for design. If, indeed, life were designed or guided then why would there not be evidence and why ostracize efforts to detect that design.
Most IDists - and certainly the Discovery Institute - are opposed to theistic evolution (TE). You seem to consider TE to be part of ID. Have I understood you right?

Generally, TEists do not claim that TE is science, only the E part. Scientists who believe in TE do good science that does not address the role God plays.

With regards to evidence, I agree entirely! If life was designed, then there would indeed be evidence. So go find it! IDists are ostracised not for looking for evidence, but for wanting to present their claims as fact before they have that evidence.

And this is how we know it is a religious position. People believe ID is true first - for faith reasons - and then look for evidence to support that view. Darwin believed evolution is true because that is what the evidence pointed to, not because he was already committed to believing it.

You said it yourself, ID is the enemy of naturalism and only the enemy of evolution in its naturalistic form. Evolution that involves RMNS, genetic drift works well with ID.
ID is the enemy of naturalism because it was set up that way. From the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document," prepared in 1998.

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.

And let us not forget that pretty much every ID argument is arguing against evolution, rather than for ID.

Personal beliefs are not part of the theory. Even some of your own people have personal beliefs. Ken Miller is a devout Catholic, Francis Collins is a born again christian.
You said "They do not claim to know the identity of this designing agent ...." and in the very next paragraph you claimed to know the identity of the designer! You know as well as I do that virtually all IDists claim to know the identity of the designer, and more specifically it is the Abrahamic God.

You can argue that ID itself is neutral on this, but that is because ID is a façade designed to hide the fact that virtually all IDists claim the designer is the Abrahamic God. That will be because it is a religious position, but is pretending to be science.

Indeed, this is why ID has no evidence, has no intention of getting evidence and will never have evidence. By its nature it cannot propose a scenario of what actually happened. It cannot even say whether life appeared 6000 years ago or a few billion. So what evidence are you going to look for?

The real issue is why neo-darwinists are so adamantly opposed to any research that hints of design.
We are not. Forensic science and archaeology are well established, and yet both look for design. But they have real ideas about what actually happened, allowing them to look for specific evidence to support or refute those ideas.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
And rightly so. A court of law established that it is a religious position, and not science. And nothing has changed since then.
It did it unjustly so but don't forget that the court system is fickle. For example, Roe vs. Wade.

Most IDists - and certainly the Discovery Institute - are opposed to theistic evolution (TE). You seem to consider TE to be part of ID. Have I understood you right?
TE and ID have differences otherwise there would not be a dichotomy between the two. That does not mean that they are opposed to each other.

Generally, TEists do not claim that TE is science, only the E part. Scientists who believe in TE do good science that does not address the role God plays.
Wrong, there is no E without the T. You're either a Theistic Evolutionists or you're not.
With regards to evidence, I agree entirely! If life was designed, then there would indeed be evidence. So go find it! IDists are ostracised not for looking for evidence, but for wanting to present their claims as fact before they have that evidence.

And this is how we know it is a religious position. People believe ID is true first - for faith reasons - and then look for evidence to support that view. Darwin believed evolution is true because that is what the evidence pointed to, not because he was already committed to believing it.
Anyone who is paying attention to the subject knows full well that there is evidence for ID. While those who reject the evidence have their own agenda.
ID is the enemy of naturalism because it was set up that way. From the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document," prepared in 1998.

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.

And let us not forget that pretty much every ID argument is arguing against evolution, rather than for ID.
ID is the enemy of naturalism because naturalism has produced no predictions while ID has made many that were a surprise to the entire scientific community.
You said "They do not claim to know the identity of this designing agent ...." and in the very next paragraph you claimed to know the identity of the designer! You know as well as I do that virtually all IDists claim to know the identity of the designer, and more specifically it is the Abrahamic God.

You can argue that ID itself is neutral on this, but that is because ID is a façade designed to hide the fact that virtually all IDists claim the designer is the Abrahamic God. That will be because it is a religious position, but is pretending to be science.
Science only deals with what is measurable everything else falls outside of its scope. Design is a measurable quantity even without the knowledge of the source. You have other fields that deal with what can not be measured such as philosophy and that is why I can embrace the Abrahamic God while accepting ID as the better alternative to naturalism.
Indeed, this is why ID has no evidence, has no intention of getting evidence and will never have evidence. By its nature it cannot propose a scenario of what actually happened. It cannot even say whether life appeared 6000 years ago or a few billion. So what evidence are you going to look for?
Wrong on so many levels. I have serious doubts as to whether you know what ID is publishing and saying. Or is it all hearsay.
We are not. Forensic science and archaeology are well established, and yet both look for design. But they have real ideas about what actually happened, allowing them to look for specific evidence to support or refute those ideas.
Apples and oranges.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Anyone who is paying attention to the subject knows full well that there is evidence for ID.
When Dr. Dembski proposed CSI and his Explanatory Filter as a test for design, he made it clear that the test was not 100% reliable. If something was designed to appear random, as are parts of cryptography, then the Filter could be fooled.

ID has so far not produced any research as to how reliable Dembski's test is. Is it 95% accurate? 80% accurate? 50% accurate? Unless we have evidence as to how accurate the test for design is, then ID has a major gap in any proposed detection of design: "This thing appears designed, but we don't know how accurate our test is." If we can't tell how accurate a test is, then any evidence that relies on that test has to be treated very sceptically.

As I said above in post #4, ID is currently a hypothesis. It needs a lot more work if it is to become an accepted scientific theory.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
It did it unjustly so but don't forget that the court system is fickle. For example, Roe vs. Wade.
How was it unjust? Because you disagree with it?

ID had the opportunity to present its case in a court of law, and most IDists choose to stay away. I think that that is because they knew that under oath they would have to reveal the truth. Only Behe (as far as I recall) had the courage to take the stand, and he ended up admitting that his preferred definition of science would include astrology.

TE and ID have differences otherwise there would not be a dichotomy between the two. That does not mean that they are opposed to each other.
Nevertheless most prominent IDists are opposed to TE.

Wrong, there is no E without the T. You're either a Theistic Evolutionists or you're not.
That is nonsense. I am an evolutionist, but not a theistic evolutionist.

My point, however, is that people who accept TE can do real science by focusing on the E and keeping the T out of their scientific claims.

Anyone who is paying attention to the subject knows full well that there is evidence for ID. While those who reject the evidence have their own agenda.
And yet time and time again IDists fail to say what that is!

Think how much more compelling your argument would be here if you cited a single example!

Here, I will show you how. For evolution, we have genetics, the vitamin C pseudogene, the nested hierarchy, the fossil record. See, evolution has actual evidence, so I can say what it is. ID does not, so....

ID is the enemy of naturalism because naturalism has produced no predictions while ID has made many that were a surprise to the entire scientific community.
ID is the enemy of naturalism because it was set up that way by religious fundamentalists. I already proved this by quoting the Wedge document. I am surprised you even want to dispute this.

Again, this was established in a court of law.

ID is the enemy of naturalism because naturalism has produced no predictions while ID has made many that were a surprise to the entire scientific community.
All predictions in science are founded on naturalism, from relativity to thermodynamics, because science uses methodological naturalism. To say otherwise is frankly preposterous.

Science only deals with what is measurable everything else falls outside of its scope. Design is a measurable quantity even without the knowledge of the source.
So show us how. Better still, I will start a thread, so you can show the world.

You have other fields that deal with what can not be measured such as philosophy and that is why I can embrace the Abrahamic God while accepting ID as the better alternative to naturalism.
Again, in the OP you said "They do not claim to know the identity of this designing agent ...." and in the very next paragraph you claimed to know the identity of the designer!

Think about it for a minute, Cisco. You made a claim in one paragraph, and refuted it in the next. Your attempts to squirm and misdirect do not change that one jot.

Wrong on so many levels. I have serious doubts as to whether you know what ID is publishing and saying. Or is it all hearsay.
So point me to a paper by a prominent IDist that sets out a design scenario in sufficient detail that we can determine the order of magnitude for the timeframe.

Apples and oranges.
Right, because archaeology and forensic science are science, and ID is something else entirely.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
The current way ID is taught is not based on quality, peer-reviewed science.

God didn't study Darwinism.
As a theist and scientist there arguably is an intelligent designer who is behind all known and unknown causes (aka random causes) influencing our world, to include using the mechanism of evolution,

but there is no evidence for an intelligent designer who has gone around the mechanism
Just because you declare there is no evidence, doesn't make it so.



of evolution and directly manipulated DNA of any animal on planet earth. I empathize with your religious consciousness


but you have been misled about evolution.

False. Darwinism is misleading with intentionality.

You can't read minds.
God disagrees with your mythical notions.


Evolution is definitely part of God's means to produce moral beings presuming God exists. I would not want ID in its current paradigm taught to my children anywhere or anytime.
Why do you hate science?

You do not listen to Jesus.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Here you are mistaken. There is evidence that intelligent designers working for Monsanto and other bio-technology companies have directly manipulated the DNA of some plants and animals.
I hired a PhD who came from Monsanto.
Found out couple months later, he was a cousin of my aunt who was a missionary in Africa. Ivy league PhD.



A company that is a spin-off of Monsanto is a client of my company.

You are correct that there is no evidence of any such manipulation by non-human entities.
Again your declarations of "no evidence" are totally worthless declarations.' Uneducated declarations.
 

e v e 21

Well-known member
The scientific theory of Intelligent Design is not a faith based doctrine but rather a scientific based theory that posits that our existence came from some intelligent agent rather than unguided random processes (naturalism). They do not claim to know the identity of this designing agent and do not pick out any particular religion but claim that the designing influence can be scientifically measured. And, in fact, one of their most prolific writers and advocates is, David Berlinksi, who is an agnostic.


I myself am Bible based and believe that the Creator is Yahweh who expressed Himself in bodily form as Jesus as prophetized in the OT. But naturalism and unguided Darwinism (although I do respect Charles Darwin as a researcher and a scientist) is taking over the mind of our young people in a school system which has outlawed prayer and does not allow anything contrary to neo-darwinism to be taught in the schools. There is a scientific alternative which is more palatable to Christian doctrine, ID, but it too has been outlawed from the school system ( see Kitzmiller v. Dover ). But way, when is the alternative ever outlawed in any forum?
God did not create this prison earth
or these ape bodies.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
I hired a PhD who came from Monsanto.
Found out couple months later, he was a cousin of my aunt who was a missionary in Africa. Ivy league PhD.

A company that is a spin-off of Monsanto is a client of my company.
What a vivid imagination you have Dr. St. Capt. Rev. Nouveau.
 

ferengi

Well-known member
The current way ID is taught is not based on quality, peer-reviewed science.
Prove it.
but there is no evidence for an intelligent designer who has gone around the mechanism of evolution and directly manipulated DNA of any animal on planet earth.
See above.
How did nature create DNA and the digital code and information within DNA?
Evolution is definitely part of God's means to produce moral beings presuming God exists.
Your evidence is?
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Currently, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory; it is a scientific hypothesis. There is insufficient evidence to lift it from a hypothesis to a theory. It lacks too much detail and it lacks necessary experimental work. It can only be considered a theory once that detail has been filled in and the experimental work completed.

As an example of missing detail, when does ID as a whole, say that, for example, Tiktaalik was designed? Specifically, do the Biblical literalist ID adherents accept that Tiktaalik was designed (and constructed) a lot more than 6,000 years ago? If not, then ID has an internal problem with religious beliefs influencing the output, which would be a definite indication that ID is not science.

When he published his theory, Darwin gave examples of things that could not evolve. So far I have not seen any equivalent examples from the ID side. What would it be impossible for the ID designer to design (and, I assume construct)?

As to the missing experimental work, one obvious piece of work is to test the various methods that ID proposes to test for the presence of design. Where are the double blind tests checking that a proposed design detection method actually works as claimed? Is it 95% accurate, 75% accurate or 50% accurate in a double blind test? Unless and until such tests are done, any proposed design detection method is to be considered unreliable.

Not all designs are actually constructed. Many architects may enter a competition, but only one design is built. ID tends to skip over the construction phase of its designs. How does the designer move molecules around to assemble the designed organism? Which of the four standard forces of nature does the designer use? How is ID trying to detect this manipulation of molecules in the present? Are other undiscovered forces being used? Have any such unexplained movements of molecules been detected in ID research labs? All of these are valid scientific question, which ID should at least be starting work on.

Not sure about that post

A bit of the tail wagging the dog?

Can we one day make a cat a dog through genetic manipulation?

Maybe?

But still a dog ..... still a cat.
 
Last edited:

rossum

Well-known member
Can we one day make a cat a dog through genetic manipulation?
If done, that would be Intelligent Design by intelligent humans. Just as Roundup resistant crops were intelligently designed by humans working for Monsanto.

But still a dog ..... still a cat.
Not by the premise of your question, which was to "make a cat a dog". If we made a dog, then it is a dog, not a cat, by definition. Otherwise we would have made a dog-like breed of cat.
 

Gondwanaland

Well-known member
I was agreeing with you, you can't outlaw prayer anymore than you can outlaw thought. But public prayer has been outlawed.
That's false as well. Any student can publicly pray so long as they are not actively disrupting an ongoing lesson by doing so.
 
Top