Intelligent Design is not creationism

Glad to see you are back, have a look around, then you can go back home...

<img src=http://members.cox.net/rakshashas/Ostrich%20Animated.gif>

Quote from kjkent1:

Well, I can see nothing's changed in the past 3 months since I've logged in here.

Whether or not Intelligent Design is equivalent to Creationism is irrelevant. The relevant issue is: Is Intelligent Design "scientific."

I submit that it is not, BECAUSE, Intelligent Design (ID) advocates do not conduct experiments to verify their hypotheses.

The fundamental hypothesis of ID is that organic life is the product of an intelligent designer.

As far as I am aware, no one has yet developed an experiment to successfully test this hypothesis.

William Dembski has proposed a host of mathematical constructs which were claimed to prove the negative, i.e., that organic life is too complex to have evolved in the available time since the Universe's proposed start time (Big Bang), and therefore, said life must be designed.

Unfortunately for Prof. Dembski, Dr. Thomas Schneider's little "EV" software program disproved all of Dembski's math, by evolving a mathematical organic structure in a very short timeframe, and, as of today, no one in the ID community has managed to conduct an experiment which demonstrates that Schneider's software doesn't work as advertised.

Conversely, those who propose the hypothesis that organic life evolves, (1) do not make any claims as to how said life "began," and (2) conduct experiments to verify their hypothesis.

Such experiments are not all empirical studies of fossils -- Dr. Richard Lenski has bacteria in his lab which have evolved new and different traits over the duration of his experiments.

The point here is not to suggest that it isn't possible that a "hidden" designer is responsible for organic evolution, but merely to demonstrate that when an experiment measuring evolutionary change is conducted, the scientist, either records that the change has occurred or that it hasn't. The scientist does NOT impute the change to the unseen hand of an intelligent designer, because that action would not be scientific.

The scientist will simply state that random mutation occurred, causing the organism to evolve.

Could that random mutation be the product of a divine or alien intervention? Absolutely. However, it falls to the Intelligent Design advocate to prove that hypothesis, not to the Evolution advocate to disprove quantum mechanics.

So, until someone in the ID community successfully proves that random mutation is not random, ID will remain a completely speculative, mathematical postulate, rather than a scientific discipline.

It would be no different were scientists unable to set up experiments to confirm Einstein's relativity equations -- they would have remained purely theoretical.

And, so we wait (or, at least I do), for the Intelligent Designer to appear and tell us what he/she/it did to create organic life, or for some person who wants to prove ID is science to conduct an experiment which proves that it is.

But, until that occurs, whether or not ID is Creationism is irrelevant, because ID is not science.
More...
 
I read some of this thread, and am wondering what the point of this ID stuff is?

Personally, i don't find:

"In the beginning an Intelligent Designer created the Heavens and the Earth"?

to be any more believable, nor reasonable, nor likely, nor provable than the previous version. In fact, i find the original version superior in three ways : 1) blaming the creation on God allows for more wiggle room than pinning it down to an "Intelligent Designer";
2) The word "God" uses 16 fewer letters of the alphabet; 3) Use of the word "God" results in a more lyrical sentence.
 
Quote from kjkent1:

Whether or not Intelligent Design is equivalent to Creationism is irrelevant. The relevant issue is: Is Intelligent Design "scientific."
More...
Maybe so. But I thought I would refute the very first post of this thread. Further, the equivalence between Creationism and ID is not entirely without relevance. It provides insight. For example, whereas the theory of evolution has a scientific agenda, the shifting of the term from Creationism to ID essentially beginning in 1987 has a painfully obvious political and religious agenda. Origins and intent offer insight. Did you listen to the Miller lecture? It's really quite good.
 
The theory of evolution has no agenda whatsoever.

People have agendas, not theories...

Real science is without personal agendas...that's what makes it science...fully devoid of any possible subjectivity.

Anyone trying to advance a theory, has an agenda...

Someone who does nothing more than present a scientific theory with no interest at all in whether or not anyone else accepts or believes that agenda is a scientist...

The Darwinists in this forum are not scientists, they are using scientific rules to push an agenda against theists...



Quote from Thunderdog:

Maybe so. But I thought I would refute the very first post of this thread. Further, the equivalence between Creationism and ID is not entirely without relevance. It provides insight. For example, whereas the theory of evolution has a scientific agenda, the shifting of the term from Creationism to ID essentially beginning in 1987 has a painfully obvious political and religious agenda. Origins and intent offer insight. Did you listen to the Miller lecture? It's really quite good.
More...
 
Quote from kjkent1:

Well, I can see nothing's changed in the past 3 months since I've logged in here.

Whether or not Intelligent Design is equivalent to Creationism is irrelevant. The relevant issue is: Is Intelligent Design "scientific."

I submit that it is not, BECAUSE, Intelligent Design (ID) advocates do not conduct experiments to verify their hypotheses.

The fundamental hypothesis of ID is that organic life is the product of an intelligent designer.

As far as I am aware, no one has yet developed an experiment to successfully test this hypothesis.

William Dembski has proposed a host of mathematical constructs which were claimed to prove the negative, i.e., that organic life is too complex to have evolved in the available time since the Universe's proposed start time (Big Bang), and therefore, said life must be designed.

Unfortunately for Prof. Dembski, Dr. Thomas Schneider's little "EV" software program disproved all of Dembski's math, by evolving a mathematical organic structure in a very short timeframe, and, as of today, no one in the ID community has managed to conduct an experiment which demonstrates that Schneider's software doesn't work as advertised.

Conversely, those who propose the hypothesis that organic life evolves, (1) do not make any claims as to how said life "began," and (2) conduct experiments to verify their hypothesis.

Such experiments are not all empirical studies of fossils -- Dr. Richard Lenski has bacteria in his lab which have evolved new and different traits over the duration of his experiments.

The point here is not to suggest that it isn't possible that a "hidden" designer is responsible for organic evolution, but merely to demonstrate that when an experiment measuring evolutionary change is conducted, the scientist, either records that the change has occurred or that it hasn't. The scientist does NOT impute the change to the unseen hand of an intelligent designer, because that action would not be scientific.

The scientist will simply state that random mutation occurred, causing the organism to evolve.

Could that random mutation be the product of a divine or alien intervention? Absolutely. However, it falls to the Intelligent Design advocate to prove that hypothesis, not to the Evolution advocate to disprove quantum mechanics.

So, until someone in the ID community successfully proves that random mutation is not random, ID will remain a completely speculative, mathematical postulate, rather than a scientific discipline.

It would be no different were scientists unable to set up experiments to confirm Einstein's relativity equations -- they would have remained purely theoretical.

And, so we wait (or, at least I do), for the Intelligent Designer to appear and tell us what he/she/it did to create organic life, or for some person who wants to prove ID is science to conduct an experiment which proves that it is.

But, until that occurs, whether or not ID is Creationism is irrelevant, because ID is not science.
More...

Ok Kjkent

would you review the debate we had about the Anthopic principle.

-------

Father of string theory admits that if we do not accept multiverse than science hard pressed to answer ID.

If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?

I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.


http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18825305.800.html


Before you come back with the typical anti ID argument about coin flips read the interview and understand what he is saying.

"Without any explanation for natures fine tunings ... one might argue that a mathematicall unique solution would be as faith based as ID."

And note from context and careful examination of the article Mr. Sussman currently argues that ID is faith based because he and other string theorists are proposing the virtually non testable hypothesis that there are infinite universes.

If multiverse strike you as farfetched conjecture.... then based on our current science your conclusion should only be design or at least an admission that the universe is so fine tuned it sure looks designed.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The theory of evolution has no agenda whatsoever.

People have agendas, not theories...

Real science is without personal agendas...that's what makes it science...fully devoid of any possible subjectivity.

Anyone trying to advance a theory, has an agenda...

Someone who does nothing more than present a scientific theory with no interest at all in whether or not anyone else accepts or believes that agenda is a scientist...

The Darwinists in this forum are not scientists, they are using scientific rules to push an agenda against theists...
More...
Did you at least listen to the Miller lecture and, if so, what did you think of it?
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Real ID is scientific
More...

Yes, if you use your tailored-to-fit faith-based definition of 'scientific'. Otherwise it is just like any other faith based belief - undisprovable, and therefore not scientific at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top