• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ID theory

sphenisc

Philosopher
sphenisc
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
6,233
It may be down to a stray comma but I don't recollect ID theory

a) dismissing most of the fossil record as false

b) relying on the Earth being far younger than geological evidence shows.

c) requiring the assumption that the deity will be the traditional Christian fundamentalist one (individual IDers may do so, it is not, however, a requirement of ID theory.)

Is there any evidence for this?
 
While you are recollecting on ID theory, how about posting the ID theory here? This seems to be the biggest hole in the ID debate - what exactly IS ID theory?

Bonus points if you can do it without any reference to evolution.
 
fishbob said:
While you are recollecting on ID theory, how about posting the ID theory here? This seems to be the biggest hole in the ID debate - what exactly IS ID theory?

Bonus points if you can do it without any reference to evolution.
Click to expand...

From the Intelligent Design Network website:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

So it appears that even they can't explain it without references to evolution...
 
sphenisc said:
It may be down to a stray comma but I don't recollect ID theory

a) dismissing most of the fossil record as false

b) relying on the Earth being far younger than geological evidence shows.

c) requiring the assumption that the deity will be the traditional Christian fundamentalist one (individual IDers may do so, it is not, however, a requirement of ID theory.)

Is there any evidence for this?
Click to expand...

ID "theory" is a political movement. It's means whatever is most advantageous in any context. Around scientists, it's all backpedaling and "we're still working out the details." Around politicians, it's "sound science." Around popular culture, it's be fair and "teach the controversy." Around Christians, it's a, b, and c.

The people touting this claptrap make no attempt to create a coherent body of ideas, because the are intellectualy dishonest attention whores serving religious fundamentalists. Listen to Behe, Dembski, or Cordova talk for 5 minutes if you doubt it.
 
sphenisc said:
It may be down to a stray comma but I don't recollect ID theory

a) dismissing most of the fossil record as false

b) relying on the Earth being far younger than geological evidence shows.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Neither does it make any statement about how life would be different if it had been designed, rather than the product of natural selection. It makes no testable predictions. There is no way of telling whether it is true or false. That is why it is not science.
c) requiring the assumption that the deity will be the traditional Christian fundamentalist one (individual IDers may do so, it is not, however, a requirement of ID theory.)
Click to expand...
The reason it doesn't specify a particular deity is that its proponents wish it to be taught in science classes in public schools in the US. It's pretty obvious from the context who they mean, though.

If the "designer" were a temporal being or group of beings, IDers have a major problem: how did the "designer" originate? Because they claim that complexity cannot arise spontaneously, their designer must be more complex than what they have designed. Therefore the "designer" must have been designed by a still more complex "designer," and so on. The only way around this objection is to assume that the designer is something that can really only be described as a deity, existing outside the universe and not governed by its rules.
 
If you look at the thread "I will not be a bright", you will see a long running argument that God need not necessarily be complex.....be warned, though, the argument goes on forever and ever amen

bj
 
BillyJoe said:
If you look at the thread "I will not be a bright", you will see a long running argument that God need not necessarily be complex.....be warned, though, the argument goes on forever and ever amen

bj
Click to expand...

Whichever way you slice it the idea of the "designer" in ID starts an infinite series otherwise you end up with the old “natural law” argument about everything needing to have a cause, which is proof of a creator! (But which happily ignores the paradox in the argument.) The “designer” in ID fails for the same reason. Sooner or later something has to the first designer without that "something" having itself been designed.
 
ID theory (without reference to evolution):

Intelligent design is the theory that life forms and ecosystems were designed and created by a higher intelligence. The higher intelligence started by creating the first life-forms from inanimate matter, then proceeded to refine and raise complexity, create new species, greate highly refined organs for the various species, ending with the multitude of life-forms we observe today.

The higher intelligence is not defined as any particular deity, but has a plan and purpose with the world and is above simple physical laws.



OK, where's me bonus?

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
ID theory (without reference to evolution):

Intelligent design is the theory that life forms and ecosystems were designed and created by a higher intelligence. The higher intelligence started by creating the first life-forms from inanimate matter, then proceeded to refine and raise complexity, create new species, greate highly refined organs for the various species, ending with the multitude of life-forms we observe today.

The higher intelligence is not defined as any particular deity, but has a plan and purpose with the world and is above simple physical laws.



OK, where's me bonus?

Hans
Click to expand...

It’s no wonder the IDers won't summarise it that way..., I mean you could almost say…

Intelligent design is the theory that life forms and ecosystems were designed and created by a God. The God started by creating the first life-forms from inanimate matter, then proceeded to refine and raise complexity, create new species, create highly refined organs for the various species, ending with the multitude of life-forms we observe today.

The God is not defined as any particular deity, but has a plan and purpose with the world and is above simple physical laws.


I think this is the way that ID should be challenged, state what they say they believe in, it would then soon expose that what they are putting forward is theology.

To allow IDs to try and argue from science is a mistake, because then it seems as if it is being taken as science, it should be treated for what it is, a discussion of theology.

(Edited t)
 
sphenisc said:
It may be down to a stray comma but I don't recollect ID theory

c) requiring the assumption that the deity will be the traditional Christian fundamentalist one (individual IDers may do so, it is not, however, a requirement of ID theory.)

Is there any evidence for this?
Click to expand...

You bet:

ID theorists start with the belief that God - the Intelligent Designer - dunnit:

And because of religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory, IDEA Center Leadership believes that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible.
Source: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
Click to expand...

The leadership of the IDEA Center are Christians, who believe that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible.
Source: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
Click to expand...

Guess who those leaders are?

In the summer of 2001, the new IDEA Center sought out leadership an established an Administration Staff and a Board of Directors. Additionally, the Center formed a distinguished Advisory Board consisting of key members of the intelligent design movement including, John Baumgardner, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Mark Hartwig, Phillip Johnson, Jay Wesley Richards, Dennis Wagner, and Jonathan Wells.
Source: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
Click to expand...

It doesn't get clearer than that.
 
The God is not defined as any particular deity, but has a plan and purpose with the world and is above simple physical laws.
Click to expand...

So God has plans for our one little "world" here... wow, how special we must be. Out of a trillion billion planets in the universe, he spends lots of time creating and caring about us.... aaahhh.

Gee, it's hard to imagine why humans might make up fairytales like this. :con2:
 
Last edited:
BS Investigator said:
So God has plans for our one little "world" here... wow, how special we must be. Out of a trillion billion planets in the universe, he spends lots of time creating and caring about us.... aaahhh.

Gee, it's hard to imagine why humans might make up fairytales like this. :con2:
Click to expand...

Another little note: why create the other plants in the first place? Seems like a waste of time.
 
Oh, Lord, won't you buy me a color tv!

One week ago I wrote a contribution to a Danish website about a tv programme on the evolution of eyes, a topic which used to be one of the favorite arguments of creationism, e.g: 'I can see how a fin might evolve into a leg, but the eye is a very complex instrument and half an eye would be of no use to an evolving creature ...'
The advocates of an 'intelligent designer' now attempt to come across as scientists, which, of course, you are not if you seek your answers in Genesis
instead of in nature:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/retina.asp

I particularly enjoyed this paragraph:
"The human visual system cannot register motion as accurately and sensitively as that of a fly, but if it did, we would see all fluorescent lighting and television flickering continually. We cannot see at night as well as a cat,
but we surpass it in some other areas. For example, cats have no colour
vision. The human eye represents an excellent balance between versatility and performance, which has enabled man’s astonishing technological achievements in antiquity."

In other words: The inventors of television did not consider how human vision
works. They did not simply adapt their contraption to be viewed by mankind. It was the other way round: In his mysterious and omniscient ways the intelligent designer in the sky adapted the human eye to be able to enjoy fluorescent lighting and television without flickering and in all the colors of the rainbow - no, wait, that's not true: in all the colors of color tv!

If God did not intend for us to stay inside at night watching television, instead of prowling the streets hunting for mice, he would not have adapted our eyes for watching tv - or invented fluorescent lighting or tv sets, would he!?
 
I had a professor once who marveled at the fact that humans could see at all.
"The human eye is sometimes said to be like a camera. Well, if it was, you'd have to put the film in with the photosensitive material facing backwards - away from the photons entering the lens made of a jelly like substance. Transmitted through the aqueous humor, all contaminated with little floating bits of dead cells.
Then you'd have to mount the camera on a paint mixer that would twitch it about 20 times a second through approximately 20 degrees of arc."
Now that's intelligent design.
 
This parody has lots of profanity in it, but it's highly relevant and hilarious.

http://www.ishkur.com/

profanity alert Do not clicky click if naughty words make you sad.

ETA You know, that's really the most apt response to Intelligent Design I've see so far.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Corey said:
I had a professor once who marveled at the fact that humans could see at all.
"The human eye is sometimes said to be like a camera. Well, if it was, you'd have to put the film in with the photosensitive material facing backwards - away from the photons entering the lens made of a jelly like substance. Transmitted through the aqueous humor, all contaminated with little floating bits of dead cells.
Then you'd have to mount the camera on a paint mixer that would twitch it about 20 times a second through approximately 20 degrees of arc."
Now that's intelligent design.
Click to expand...

If our eyes were intelligently designed, we would be able to see infrared and ultraviolet, too.

Cavemen with infrared goggles? No threat from dangerous animals anymore, and you could spot prey from far away.

But, nooooooooooo, we get p*ss-poor eyesight instead...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom