The ID community wants to prove the existence of a supernatural designer. No natural actor will do -- it must only be the Almighty Lord of the Universe who designs all.
ID is not an interventionist theory. It's only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable. All the design could therefore have emerged through a cosmic evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang. What's more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe. ID has no doctrine of creation.
Intelligent design does not require organisms to emerge suddenly or be specially created from scratch by the intervention of a designing intelligence. To be sure, intelligent design is compatible with the creationist idea of organisms being suddenly created from scratch. But it is also perfectly compatible with the evolutionist idea of new organisms arising from old by a process of generation. What separates intelligent design from naturalistic evolution is not whether organisms evolved or the extent to which they evolved but what was responsible for their evolution.
Quote from Teleologist:
John Dough wrote:
Sure, that's how things looked to Darwin but his idea had to wait 60 years before it was tested by science.
Big ideas take time
by Krauze
Quote from Teleologist:
John Dough wrote:
I'm not part of the ID community but here is what William Dembski a prominent member of the ID community has to say about the supernatural in relation to ID:
I'm not interested in what Krauze conjectures about Darwin or his theories. I'm interested only in what Krauze can actually hypothesize and then prove with a verifiable experiment.
come on, do you believe ANYBODY, let alone scientists, would have taken Darwin's word for it? this is not early 20C any more, we are millions of hours of dedicated research and orders of magnitude closer to the molecular, supramolecular processes involved... we are not there in the park playing with words at a fluffy semantic level of understanding...Quote from Teleologist:
Environmental changes are purely random, accidental, happenstantial. So if a random mutation is adaptive, it is so only because of an accidental, purely random change in the environment.
What this means, if it isn't already crystal clear to everyone, is that Darwinian theory says that a random accident in the organism's genome, is linked together with the random, accidental changes of the external environment, and sometimes, luckily, by pure coincidence, there is a positive correspondence between the two accidental phenomena that gives the organism better adaptivity than its unmodified brothers and cousins and aunts.
Randomness + randomness = randomness.
And randomness is not scientifically acceptable as a causal explanation for origins. It amounts to nothing more scientific than "spontaneous generation", or, "it just -happens-, that's all."
The mechanism of Darwinian evolution is accidental variation plus coincidental selection. Accident and coincidence are not testable. For something to be testable it must exhibit regularity, repeatability, predictability. The Darwinian mechanism exhibits none of these features, hence it's untestable.
This is another "argument from authority." If Mr. Dembski can prove that ID is the source of evolution, let him do so. This requires more than mere mathematical reasoning. He must conduct an experiment with real organic matter which behaves substantially according to his mathematical model.
thats early 20C philosophy and factually incorrect too, even on a non-quantum scale... look at non-equilibrium, non-dissipative systems... just because man has started by identifying the relatively more obvious, easier to grasp, macroscopic "deterministic" features of his environment, doesn't and never meant that that is all there is...Quote from Teleologist:
As far as physics informs us, everything in the non-quantum universe is deterministic which by defintion means that randomness is an illusion caused by incomplete information of the chain of causal events. And even in quantum mechanics itâs arguable whether anything is actually unpredictable or whether the unpredictability is because we donât have a complete theory (quantum gravity is MIA). The default position should be that randomness is an illusion since all the evidence points that way right now.
you are being unkind here... i find ID just as reasonable as IS (intelligent santa) or even the flying spaghetti monster theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_MonsterQuote from john dough:
Everything is ultimately taken on faith. My point is that the real world functions because reasonable people conclude reasonably, based on reasonable evidence.
Evolution is a reasonable conclusion drawn from a large amount of reasonable evidence -- whereas Design is not.
Design may be true, but Evolution is more reasonable, based on the weight of existing evidence.
If this weren't true, then Design would be more reasonable, and would be the preferred conclusion.
But, it's not. Yet the Design advocate cannot stand up, accept this reality and then try to prove Design with reasonable evidence.
Instead, the Design advocate will continue to demand that the Evolution advocate prove the negative: that Design is not only unreasonable -- it is impossible.
This cannot be done, and the Design advocate knows this. Which is why such a position is "unreasonable."
please... there is no supposition there...Quote from Teleologist:
This statement makes no sense to me. You are pitting ID against evolution. ID is not anti-evolution. ID is an alternative to the blind watchmaker hypothesis, the supposition that the evolutionary process is devoid of design.