Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Teleologist]

Smilingsynic said:

But natural selection does not NEED an intelligent designer/creator or such to work.

I have a different perspective. We know that intelligence can intervene in evolution. Even beings as modestly intelligent as we can shape and alter evolution through artificial selection (where selection is guided) and genetic engineering (where mutations are planned). For example, any scientific explanation that attempted to account for the existence of domestic animals, and different breeds of dogs, would be incomplete without reference to intelligent intervention. Better yet, the shear number of different bacteria that exist with resistance to the huge number of different antibiotics cannot validly be explained without reference to intelligent intervention.

Dolly the sheep is related by common descent to her sheep parents. But she also exists because of ID. ID is also behind the origin of flies that express GFP and mice that mimic various human genetic diseases. The question is whether analogous intelligent intervention (albeit, of an advanced level), is behind any origin events from ancient times.

Where is the solid evidence that all major evolutionary innovations in the past are due to random mutation and coincidental selection rather than planned mutations and guided selection? It appears that the belief in random mutation and coincidental selection is simply a function of metaphysics and game rules. And that doesn't help someone who is seriously open to a teleological explanation.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

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.

Just in case you hadn't noticed , a search on "natural selection culls" , revealing at the top of the list....

www.barking-moonbat.com
and Dembski's www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/[/url]

... do not count as the scientific community and therefore hardly supports you point.
Back it up yourself Tele. Try arguing from a standpoint of the bleedin obvious for once. It won't help your agenda but it may just make you feel a little happier.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

I have a different perspective. We know that intelligence can intervene in evolution. Even beings as modestly intelligent as we can shape and alter evolution through artificial selection (where selection is guided) and genetic engineering (where mutations are planned). For example, any scientific explanation that attempted to account for the existence of domestic animals, and different breeds of dogs, would be incomplete without reference to intelligent intervention. Better yet, the shear number of different bacteria that exist with resistance to the huge number of different antibiotics cannot validly be explained without reference to intelligent intervention.

Dolly the sheep is related by common descent to her sheep parents. But she also exists because of ID. ID is also behind the origin of flies that express GFP and mice that mimic various human genetic diseases. The question is whether analogous intelligent intervention (albeit, of an advanced level), is behind any origin events from ancient times.

Where is the solid evidence that all major evolutionary innovations in the past are due to random mutation and coincidental selection rather than planned mutations and guided selection? It appears that the belief in random mutation and coincidental selection is simply a function of metaphysics and game rules. And that doesn't help someone who is seriously open to a teleological explanation.

Can this still be your proposition

Because an intelligence can intervene in nature , therefore, nothing would naturally occur by itself, without intelligent intervention.

Your proposition does nothing to address the teleological question it poses. In fact worse yet, teleology itself does nothing at all but beg the question teleology tries to pretend it wants to answer.

Teleologically speaking, Intelligent Design needs Intelligent Design because everything must have a first cause, including a first cause, including Intelligent Design.

Does it really never strike you how dysfunctional the teleological proposition is .

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Nature needs a first cause, eh?

LOL!

Quote from stu:

Can this still be your proposition

Because an intelligence can intervene in nature , therefore, nothing would naturally occur by itself, without intelligent intervention.

Your proposition does nothing to address the teleological question it poses. In fact worse yet, teleology itself does nothing at all but beg the question teleology tries to pretend it wants to answer.

Teleologically speaking, Intelligent Design needs Intelligent Design because everything must have a first cause, including a first cause, including Intelligent Design.

Does it really never strike you how dysfunctional the teleological proposition is .

 

[yip1997]

Quote from Teleologist:

Smilingsynic said:

I have a different perspective. We know that intelligence can intervene in evolution. Even beings as modestly intelligent as we can shape and alter evolution through artificial selection (where selection is guided) and genetic engineering (where mutations are planned). For example, any scientific explanation that attempted to account for the existence of domestic animals, and different breeds of dogs, would be incomplete without reference to intelligent intervention. Better yet, the shear number of different bacteria that exist with resistance to the huge number of different antibiotics cannot validly be explained without reference to intelligent intervention.

I like the idea of guided selection, that i proposed in my dissertation long time ago.
It is possible that the random behavior found in nature is designed but there is no scientific proof of the design yet.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Apart from shaking hands with the Designer of the Universe, finding the "plans" for the Universe that predate the Universe (LMAO) what exactly would constitute scientific proof of design?

Remember, if you require meeting the Designer, then you are essentially saying that all evidence must be from direct observation, which would render much of our science of today "non science."

Quote from yip1997:

I like the idea of guided selection, that i proposed in my dissertation long time ago.
It is possible that the random behavior found in nature is designed but there is no scientific proof of the design yet.

 

[stu]

Quote from yip1997:

I like the idea of guided selection, that i proposed in my dissertation long time ago.
It is possible that the random behavior found in nature is designed but there is no scientific proof of the design yet.

So why would't the random behavior found in nature not be the design of random behavior. ?

 

[yip1997]

Quote from stu:

So why would't the random behavior found in nature not be the design of random behavior. ?

It is possible but there is no scientific proof.

 

[yip1997]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Apart from shaking hands with the Designer of the Universe, finding the "plans" for the Universe that predate the Universe (LMAO) what exactly would constitute scientific proof of design?

Remember, if you require meeting the Designer, then you are essentially saying that all evidence must be from direct observation, which would render much of our science of today "non science."

I didn't mean one needs to have "scientific" proof for your belief. But it is a fact that we can't find any "scientific" proof using well accepted scientific methods.

 

[yip1997]

Quote from yip1997:

I didn't mean one needs to have "scientific" proof for your belief. But it is a fact that we can't find any "scientific" proof using well accepted scientific methods.

[edit] It is my own belief that we can't use any scientific methods to prove/disprove ID.