"Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case."
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
Originally posted by lemon limeWell, the evolutionists say "Intelligent Design" brings up the question: "Who is the designer?" and they know creationists will answer with God. Evolutionists know that they must do everything possible to keep God out of the equation because that automatically allows for creation.
"Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on rand ...[text shortened]... ut actually addressing the merits of its case."
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
Originally posted by RJHindsThey also know that keeping God out of the equation only allows for evolution. But ID does not speculate on theological matters, it only seeks to identify markers for intelligent design. It does however pose a threat to evolutionists who don't want there to be any other possible explanation. They want nothing else to be considered other than a naturally occurring abiogenesis followed by an evolution into increasingly complex organisms.
Well, the evolutionists say "Intelligent Design" brings up the question: "Who is the designer?" and they know creationists will answer with God. Evolutionists know that they must do everything possible to keep God out of the equation because that automatically allows for creation.
"Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed."
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by lemon limeIntelligent design was born out of the creationism movement. After Edwards v. Aguillard, they changed all occurrences of "creationism" in the book "of pandas and people" with "intelligent design", and voilá: a new flavour of the same pseudoscientific branch was born.
"Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on rand ...[text shortened]... ut actually addressing the merits of its case."
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
When we use the terms interchangeably, we are using both terms correctly, for they reflect the exact same idea: that apparent design equals design, and that design can only come from intelligence. Simply admitting that this proposed intelligence need not be the christian god, does absolutely nothing to legitimise intelligent design scientifically. It's still bust.
Originally posted by C HessEverything can be described in terms of design, but markers of intelligent design do not occur naturally. If you see a set of human footprints or bear prints in the wilderness you are not seeing a naturally occurring design. ID first came about when someone set out to define the difference between something strictly formed by nature and something that had signs of intelligent design. We obviously have an inborn ability to discern the difference, and ID specifically outlines what that difference is.
Intelligent design was born out of the creationism movement. After Edwards v. Aguillard, they changed all occurrences of "creationism" in the book "of pandas and people" with "intelligent design", and voilá: a new flavour of the same pseudoscientific branch was born.
When we use the terms interchangeably, we are using both terms correctly, for they reflect ...[text shortened]... n god, does absolutely nothing to legitimise intelligent design scientifically. It's still bust.
Definition of Intelligent Design
"What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
Originally posted by lemon limeAtheist evolutionists always find ways to get around that argument no matter how stupid they sound. For example, when a biology professor and researcher Michael Behe used the bacterial flagellum motor and a mouse trap as examples of irreducible complexity of items that need all their parts to function as intended, the evolutionists spun it to their benefit.
"Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object ...[text shortened]... y conclude that such structures were designed."
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
Their biologist Kenneth Miller removed the catch rod to the mouse trap and stated that even though it could no longer catch mouse that it made a good tie clip as he put it on his tie. I know that sounded kind of stupid, but apparently the judge fell for it, especially when he gave a diagram of a bacteria that had some of the parts of the flagellum motor which was supposed to be used as a pump to inject poison or something instead of propelling the bacteria through liquid.
God apparently finds ways to combine some parts to do different things, however, evolutionists can not allow an intelligent design explanation. Instead of God they must substitute magic evolution or the flying spaghetti monster even.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by lemon limeSo, all I have to do to end this whole farce is point to an example where so called CSI is produced in nature through a non-intelligent process?
Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).
Ice, waterfalls, clouds... need I go on?
Seriously, if they want to support intelligent design with science they run against two problems. First, if they are serious about the designer not having to be supernatural in nature, they've merely pushed the problem back to who designed the designer. If they admit that the designer has to be a supernatural one, they're back in religion. There's no way around this. Second, to observe that human beings can produce CSI doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that a supernatural exist from which another intelligence can produce what ID proponents believe are CSI in our own reality. In fact, the simplest explanation for apparent design is the natural explanation, because it allows for one of the corner-stones of science to be excercised: namely to test the hypothesis. You can only use argumentation to support ID, which at best puts it in the realm of philosophy (though I imagine a philosopher or two would object to that), not science.
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd what is the motivation of theist evolutionists?
Well, the evolutionists say "Intelligent Design" brings up the question: "Who is the designer?" and they know creationists will answer with God. Evolutionists know that they must do everything possible to keep God out of the equation because that automatically allows for creation.