Intelligent Design is not creationism

smilingsynic said:

DNA evidence reveals that all life had a common ancestor, and additional evidence shows that humans broke away from apes around 5-6 million years ago.
More...
ID doesn't dispute common ancestry or human evolution. Evolution is a fact, random mutation is a fact, natural selection is a fact. But to say, "That's all there is," well, that's not a fact. You obviously don't understand ID.

I am an evolutionist. An intelligent design evolutionist. ID is not anti-evolution. Evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design.

ID doesn't dispute that random mutations and natural selection play an important role in the evolutionary process. ID is about how a designer might employ and exploit these mechanisms to carry out a design objective.

I think we can all agree on three basic points: random mutations occur and generate variability; natural selection culls this variability in terms of fitness. RM&NS are myopic (so myopic that Dawkins labels this watchmaker "blind"). From here, the intelligent design evolutionist asks a question - how can one use such facts to carry out a design objective? How does one design X such that RM&NS will eventually extract Y as a function of X?

Who's to say that investigating such a question won't lead to a better understanding of biotic reality?
 
Quote from Teleologist:

ID doesn't dispute common ancestry or human evolution. Evolution is a fact, random mutation is a fact, natural selection is a fact. But to say, "That's all there is," well, that's not a fact. You obviously don't understand ID.

I am an evolutionist. An intelligent design evolutionist. ID is not anti-evolution. Evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design.

ID doesn't dispute that random mutations and natural selection play an important role in the evolutionary process. ID is about how a designer might employ and exploit these mechanisms to carry out a design objective.

I think we can all agree on three basic points: random mutations occur and generate variability; natural selection culls this variability in terms of fitness. RM&NS are myopic (so myopic that Dawkins labels this watchmaker "blind"). From here, the intelligent design evolutionist asks a question - how can one use such facts to carry out a design objective? How does one design X such that RM&NS will eventually extract Y as a function of X?

Who's to say that investigating such a question won't lead to a better understanding of biotic reality?
More...

Lol. "Trust me, I'm an intelligent design creationist evolutionist "

Before you start telling others what they do and do not understand, might I suggest you try and learn more about natural selection. For one thing, it does not cull anything. There is no purpose to cull described anywhere in natural selection There is no setting aside or rejecting or disposing of by method or any other means. That which cannot survive or reproduce simply does not survive.. Ones that do - survive. Ones that happen to adapt to their environment best - survive best.


" How does one design X such that RM&NS will eventually extract Y as a function of X?"
You design a designer to design X. But before that, you design a designer to design a designer to design......

but wait....the ID/creationist doesn't ask the question.... oh look, wouldn't random mutation itself account for X anyway?

Of course it would. But then accept that, and you wouldn't be the ID/ Creationist you’re pretending not to be.
 
Thunderdog said:

Intelligent Design Is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo.
More...

Nonsense! A principle critique of intelligent design is that it is simply Creationism repackaged or Creationism renamed. Somehow, ID advocates are equated with people who take a literal interpretation of the first chapters of the book of Genesis, then proceed to the lab and try to do research based on their literal interpretation. This is the most well known, and widely used, false label of ID.

This claim of equating ID with “Scientific Creationism” is a terrible conjoining of semantic acrobatics, ad hominem logical fallacy, and sophistry. No ID researcher, that I am aware of, is researching Noah’s Flood. Plain and simple, ID researchers are not using the Bible as a source for scientific inspiration. ID begins and ends with a scientific investigation of nature.

Design is an inference. ID is about making design inferences and using them to guide scientific research. Biologists are trying to better understand biotic reality, not disprove design. Likewise, design theorists are trying to better understand biotic reality, not prove design.

I submit that the blind watchmaker hypothesis is dysteleology in a cheap tuxedo.
 
Stu said:
I suggest you try and learn more about natural selection. For one thing, it does not cull anything.
More...
I suggest you do a google search on the terms "natural selection" and "cull". You will find a ton of articles that describe natural selection as a culling process. Here's one that came right up when I done a google search. The website is: "An Introduction to Genetic Analysis". Here's the quote:

The process of mutation supplies undirected variation, whereas the process of natural selection culls this variation, increasing the frequency of those variants that by chance are better able to survive and reproduce.
More...
In any event, regardless of how you define natural selection you haven't refuted my point that NS can be incorporated into a design objective.
 
Quote from Teleologist:

...ID researcher...
More...
Say what? Isn't ID where you attribute gaps in knowledge to "God?" ("All right, boys, we can't quite connect these here dots with the knowledge base that we have at this moment, so I guess the answer is 'God.' There's no point in looking further since we now have the answer.") I would have thought that ID is less about research and more about "faith."
 
Belief in natural selection does not preclude belief in some intelligent designer. But natural selection does not NEED an intelligent designer/creator or such to work.

However, an intelligent designer who employs natural selection would have to be considered a cruel being unworthy of worship and admiration by its creation.
 
Quote from Teleologist:

I suggest you do a google search on the terms "natural selection" and "cull". You will find a ton of articles that describe natural selection as a culling process. Here's one that came right up when I done a google search. The website is: "An Introduction to Genetic Analysis". Here's the quote:
The process of mutation supplies undirected variation, whereas the process of natural selection culls this variation, increasing the frequency of those variants that by chance are better able to survive and reproduce.
More...

Did Behe write that?
Culls the variation? ....Then there is no variation!

So variants which survive culling (what!! they have been culled but they survive) are variants better able to reproduce.
Yep, sounds like one of Behe's.

What do you imagine natural selection is doing. Strolling around with Captain Kirk's phaser gun, knocking off bits of mutation here and there, culling stuff that doesn't fashionably color co-ordinate with an overall planet 'look'.?

Non reproduction stops a process of mutation.
Natural selection does not cull mutation.

Here's some Google you suggested a search for. It was the top in the list ....

"Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common. " (wikipedia)

.....less common.... therefore... don't reproduce... all the way to complete non reproduction and extinction..
Less common heritable traits get less successive... because less common heritable traits are not reproducing .

Natural selection is the sustained reaction to the marked and gradual changes in condition of favorable heritable traits reproducing successfully. Not a culling process.
You were having a laugh, right?
Quote from Teleologist:

In any event, regardless of how you define natural selection you haven't refuted my point that NS can be incorporated into a design objective
More...
Then equally, Murphy's Law and Fairy Blueprints can be said to be incorporated into a design objective. Because of that fact alone, no further refutation should be necessary.

However you have not refuted the horrible infinite regress problem your Creationist Designer creates, past ignoring it.
 
Stu said:
Did Behe write that?
More...

No. Just do a google search on "natural selection culls" and you will see hundreds of quotes from the scientific community that backs up what I said.
 
Quote from Teleologist:
In any event, regardless of how you define natural selection you haven't refuted my point that NS can be incorporated into a design objective
More...
Stu responds:
Then equally, Murphy's Law and Fairy Blueprints can be said to be incorporated into a design objective. Because of that fact alone, no further refutation should be necessary.
More...
But I'm not just saying NS can be incorporated into a design objective. We have many examples of NS being incorporated into a design objective.

Stu said:
However you have not refuted the horrible infinite regress problem your Creationist Designer creates...
More...
But your non-design hypothesis has the same "problem". To explain the origin of something you either have to posit an infinite series of causal regresses, or assume that matter and energy have an eternal quality with no initial cause or argue for a first cause existing outside time and space which is the cause for a finite existence of matter and energy. What other options are there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top