The Future for Intelligent Design

[Wowbagger]

I once asked a few questions, in another thread, that were never answered. I have now become so curious as to what those answers might be, that I decided to start a whole new thread, just to draw attention to them.

Here is part of the post that prompted my questions:

I.D. has Darwinists scared ****less, and for good reason. The more we learn, the stronger the positive case for I.D. becomes,

(snip)

The design paradigm is the future of biology, including evolution.

For this thread, I am assuming the Intelligent Designer referred to is not merely human; but in the context of the originator of life as we know it.

So, here is my inquisitive response:

If Intelligent Design really is going to rise up, and acquire such a bright future, its proponents are going to have to answer at least one of these questions:

1) How can Intelligent Design be applied to medical research, to help us understand and fight disease?

2) How can Intelligent Design help us develop conservation strategies for endangered species?

3) How can the Intelligent Designer apply himself to agriculture to help us develop more efficient crops yields?

If I.D. really is the way of the future, I expect spectacular answers to at least some of those.

Darwinian Evolution is already way ahead in providing such answers, and shows no sign of stopping: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...hp?topic_id=47

In addition (and this was not originally asked in the other thread, but I figured I ought to bring it up): If Intelligent Design is to be considered a science, on par with, or superior to, Evolution via Natural Selection, then it will eventually need to test for the actual existence of the Designer.

4) Can you answer any of these, or at least provide a method that can, in principal, help us find answers to them:

4a) What is the nature of the I.D. being?
4b) Where is he/she/it located?
4c) What machines did it use, in the design and construction of life?
4d) Where are the design documents and drafts?
4e) What independently verifiable evidence allows us to know these things, reliably?


Until good answers to any of these sorts of questions can be provided, I fail to see how Darwinists can be running scared, right now.

I encourage any I.D. proponent to answer these. Not just "True Skeptic".

 

[Dunstan]

According to creationists, "Darwinism" has been a "theory in crisis" for, what is it, a hundred years now? Any minute now, it's going to crack. Yessirre.

 

[fishbob]

The Future for Intelligent Design . . .

. . . is looking good!!!

Get in on the ground-floor conversion to FLE!!!!
Make big $$$ now!!!
Convert-the-Rubes kits only $79.95 during this amazing offer!!!!!!

 

[paximperium]

1) How can Intelligent Design be applied to medical research, to help us understand and fight disease?

Jesus will come back and cure all diseases at a time of our greatest need. Medical Researchers should surrender their petty research because they are preventing Jesus' return...or god will do something.

2) How can Intelligent Design help us develop conservation strategies for endangered species?

The Star Ark will return from its 1billion year voyage and return all of Earth species to its original splendor. One Ra returns, all shall be well...or god will do something.

3) How can the Intelligent Designer apply himself to agriculture to help us develop more efficient crops yields?

People are more hungry for Spirituality than for food. Food is for the weak. God will provide. ID will feed their spirits...or god will receive them in "heaven" as they die from starvation.

 

[athon]

I wouldn't hold your breath. All of those things demand predictive qualities, which ID doesn't do. It can only make feeble attempts to show weaknesses in Darwinian evolution, or create strawman arguments to burn down.

Athon

 

[KingMerv00]

Legally speaking, ID is all but dead and buried. Theologically, it will be around forever.

 

[Aerik]

Yeah you wish merv.

Texas, Louisiania, Oklahoma, Indiana, Illinois, they all keep coming up with "teach the controversy" and "academic freedom" bills.

 

[KingMerv00]

Yeah you wish merv.

Texas, Louisiania, Oklahoma, Indiana, Illinois, they all keep coming up with "teach the controversy" and "academic freedom" bills.

They can write all the bills they like. They will keep getting shot down in court.

 

[Wowbagger]

Jesus will come back...

Can anyone of genuine religious persuasion verify that this is the general opinion of Intelligent Designer advocates? If so, how will you convince the medical researchers, etc. to drop their research?

I wouldn't hold your breath. All of those things demand predictive qualities, which ID doesn't do. It can only make feeble attempts to show weaknesses in Darwinian evolution, or create strawman arguments to burn down.

Sounds like personal incredulity, to me. Just because you think ID can't do it, doesn't mean some super-genious ID advocate, (more clever than both of us), couldn't possibly do it.

But, don't worry. I'm not holding my breathe, anyway.

Legally speaking, ID is all but dead and buried. Theologically, it will be around forever.

Legality has nothing to do with it. If ID wants to have a super-de-duper future, it has to do more than try to convince the courts, anyway.

 

[KingMerv00]

Legality has nothing to do with it. If ID wants to have a super-de-duper future, it has to do more than try to convince the courts, anyway.

ID is, at its heart, a social issue. The only way to force it into schools is through legal means.

 

[Wowbagger]

ID is, at its heart, a social issue. The only way to force it into schools is through legal means.

That may be the case, right now. But, I would like to see if some Creationist can shed light on an even better future for their cause, in the realm of scientific relevancy.

 

[firecoins]

Intelligent Design has no future since the concept can not evolve.

 

[martu]

I predict more books.

 

[Wowbagger]

Intelligent Design has no future since the concept can not evolve.

I'm not so sure about that. Over the centuries, the concept has evolved.... usually in small steps towards Evolution's favor. (And, of course, triggered by discoveries made by evolutionary biologists) But, it does seem to evolve.

The latest attempt, Front-Loaded Evolution, actually acknowledges most of the power of natural selection, they just don't see it as all "natural", yet.

It seems Evolution is powerful enough to change the face of Intelligent Design, but Intelligent Design has never been powerful enough to change anything in Evolution, yet.

 

[Tumblehome]

Intelligent Design has no future since the concept can not evolve.

Ah, but Intelligent Design "evolved" out of creationism, and probably something else will "evolve" out of ID in the future, maybe Facilitated Genesis, or The "Poof" Theory.

 

[Wowbagger]

Ah, but Intelligent Design "evolved" out of creationism,

I.D. is actually a subset of creationism, but I guess its promotion above Biblical references (most of the time) qualifies as a small bit of evolution. More importantly, it is both the findings and the rigorous discipline of real biological science that is driving the evolution of Creationism/I.D. Creationism is not evolving through its own findings, because it has none.

and probably something else will "evolve" out of ID in the future, maybe Facilitated Genesis, or The "Poof" Theory.

Directed Evolution is another possability.

 

[joobz]

1) How can Intelligent Design be applied to medical research, to help us understand and fight disease?

2) How can Intelligent Design help us develop conservation strategies for endangered species?

3) How can the Intelligent Designer apply himself to agriculture to help us develop more efficient crops yields?

Nothing in science REQUIRES a theory to have functional utility. The fact that the majority do, is merely a consequent. If ID is true, it wouldn't (couldn't) contradict our observation that evolution does occur. As such, we are merely discussing what kick started the whole thing.

To me, this has the result that:
If we create life in a lab, than are we equivilent to the thing that created life on earth? In fact, I think ID has the unintended consequence of nullifing god as a supreme being.

If I.D. really is the way of the future, I expect spectacular answers to at least some of those.

Darwinian Evolution is already way ahead in providing such answers, and shows no sign of stopping: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...hp?topic_id=47

In addition (and this was not originally asked in the other thread, but I figured I ought to bring it up): If Intelligent Design is to be considered a science, on par with, or superior to, Evolution via Natural Selection, then it will eventually need to test for the actual existence of the Designer.

4) Can you answer any of these, or at least provide a method that can, in principal, help us find answers to them:

4a) What is the nature of the I.D. being?
4b) Where is he/she/it located?
4c) What machines did it use, in the design and construction of life?
4d) Where are the design documents and drafts?
4e) What independently verifiable evidence allows us to know these things, reliably?


Until good answers to any of these sorts of questions can be provided, I fail to see how Darwinists can be running scared, right now.

I encourage any I.D. proponent to answer these. Not just "True Skeptic".

ID doesn't attempt to address a mechanism at all. And this is why it fails.

 

[Perpetual Student]

In the long term and from a global perspective, ID will be a fleeting phenomenon. Creationism has a foothold in North America and a smaller representation in a few other Western (Christian) nations. Most of the world is disinterested in this silly pastime since their religious traditions are either non-existent, minimal or too alien for ID to flourish. Based on population projections and economic trends, in the very long term our (Western/Christian) world will be marginalized.

 

[Wowbagger]

Nothing in science REQUIRES a theory to have functional utility.

Yes, I know that. However, if we are dealing with theories that have broad implications for biology, the very science of life, one would think it would have broad implications for how we deal with issues surrounding life forms.

As I stated, evolutionary biology already has a tremendous head start in all of the relevant fields: Medical research, species conservation, agriculture, etc. Even a few tangently related fields, such as economics and social sciences. If Evolution is somehow wrong, then its replacement should yield total revolution in each of those areas.

I acknowledge that evidence, testability, repeatability, etc. are among the principal properties of good science. But, in all honesty, I do not think most people care about that. I think the "winner" in this "war" will ultimately be decided on which way proves to be more useful to our lives.

My money, of course, is on Evolution, at the moment. But, some members upon this forum seem to think otherwise. If they think the way of the future really is Intelligent Design, instead, it is up to them to demonstrate how that future can come about. The best, most powerful way to do that, might be to show us how it can transform medical research, etc., for the better.

As such, we are merely discussing what kick started the whole thing.

Alas, I have seen far too many creationists try to claim that the impact evolution has had, on medicine, is a myth. We are not just dealing with kick-starts, but the very foundation in how life has been shown to operate.

In fact, I think ID has the unintended consequence of nullifing god as a supreme being.

This could well be true. If life could be created by non-supreme beings, such as us mere mortal humans, then that would imply that the creator that created us could have been just as lowly as we are.

ID doesn't attempt to address a mechanism at all. And this is why it fails.

You can say that now, but what if that changes... in the future?!

To All:
I am being overly-tough on everyone, in this thread, because I didn't want to come off as a "yes man", who agrees with everything Darwinists would say. In the event some creationists did try to participate, in here, I wanted to give them as fair a chance as possible to defend themselves. And, I still do. Even though it doesn't look like that is going to happen, anymore.

I might try to take these sorts of questions over to some actual Creationist forums, to see what happens. I expect a few bannings, but I endeavor to maintain as diplomatic an attitude as I can muster, to minimize that from happening.