ChatterBank0 min ago
A question of intelligence
Err.. what is 'intelligent design'? something to do with evolution ( or opposing it ).. ya, that one. Can anyone give it to me in layman's terms?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gnisy. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Intelligent Design is a pseudo scientific attempt by some Americans( particularly in Kansas-home of the Wizard of Oz) to introduce the outdated concept of creationism into US schools and challenge the principle of evolution.
Schools in the US have been very strict about the separation of state (in this case, schools) and religion. By turning religious creationism into a scientific intelligent design argument, they are attempting to introduce religious concepts into American schools by the back door.
The argument is based on the idea that the world and its occupants are too complex to have evolved by chance. In other words, some 'supernatural' figure started it all.
Schools in the US have been very strict about the separation of state (in this case, schools) and religion. By turning religious creationism into a scientific intelligent design argument, they are attempting to introduce religious concepts into American schools by the back door.
The argument is based on the idea that the world and its occupants are too complex to have evolved by chance. In other words, some 'supernatural' figure started it all.
Drusilla, that simply isn't true in its entirety, with all due respect. The debate is well engaged, here if you'd care:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Science/Question163926.html
Thanks Clanad. I've re-read the info provided and thank you, but it doesn't change my opinion that intelligent design is a smoke screen to introduce religion into schools in the USA, under the guise of 'questioning' the theory of evolution.
I'm all for 'evolution' being held up to intense scientific scrutiny, but the base line for intelligent design is the concept of God and faith in the unprovable.
I'm all for 'evolution' being held up to intense scientific scrutiny, but the base line for intelligent design is the concept of God and faith in the unprovable.
Drusilla, once again, that isn't entirely a true statement. Design detection has been the scientific basis for inquiry in numerous endeavors, I can list those for you, but the point is, any questioning of Darwin's theory seems to be out of bounds. Many people could consider the implications of intelligent design and not come to a conclusion of the identity of the designer. That's simply not neccessary. The holes, gaps and outright misleading information sometimes promulgated by evolutionists can be challenged on any number of levels, and is done so by numerous credentialed, peer reviewed specialists in all fields of science. But, it seems, any alternative that even has a hint of religion (egads!) is immediately suspect. I've stated before,ad nauseum to some, I'm sure,that the belief in evolution as an explanation of origins requires at least, if not more faith, than religion... in my opinion...
So, what does the theory of "intelligent design" state? That the Universe was "created" by some invisible, intelligent entity (in seven days, perhaps)? Or does "intelligent design" only mean that life was created by such an entity - or, even more specifically, Earth's life? What is the scientific explanation for how a being of such great intelligence and power came into existence and managed to (intelligently) design, and presumably create, life? What happened to the intelligent designer - did He (or She, or It) die, and again, where is the evidence one way or the other? Does the "intelligent design" theory conflict at all with Christianity theory, and what is the explanation for why an "intelligent designer" need not necessarily mean "God"? What is so convincing about the theory of intelligent design that has made people disbelieve most or all of the overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution? On the same note, what irrefutable proof is there that intelligent design supporters aren't just failing to grasp the how evolution works, or that some do understand but are just too stubborn to admit they're wrong? Doesn't that sound like something people would do?
I seem to be having a diffiuclt time getting the point across that Intelligent Design is a testable and falsifiable theory. It has been used for years. Jay Richards recently wrote an article that covers it quite well:
We now have a reliable scientific method, formalized by mathematician and philosopher William Dembski (in The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, 1998), for detecting designed objects and distinguishing them from the products of chance and impersonal laws. Scientists already use the design inference intuitively in fields such as cryptography, archaeology and forensics. When applied to nature's fine-tuned laws, DNA sequences and Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems, the clear conclusion is that they are intelligently designed.
Not surprisingly, these matters are provoking fierce debate. Many guardians of current scientific orthodoxy are casting aspersions to prevent these new insights from gaining a hearing, and even threatening the freedom of scientists to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Their furor is understandable, for they realize that intelligent design in the natural sciences, like scientific materialism, would have profound social consequences. No longer would science seem to underwrite a materialistic world view, in which human beings are neither accountable nor responsible.
What Darwinism and scientific materialism have dismantled, intelligent design theory could help restore...
Another fact in the argument is the story of your own British Philospher, Professor Antony Flew. The 81 year old lifelong atheist recently came to the belief and publicly announced his change of heart to theism, based almost entirely on "following the evidence where it leads", concering intelligent design especially as it relates to irreducible complexity. Granted, the Professor has not become a Christian or follower of any other "religion", but the change from anteist to theist is in istelf earth shaking...
As quoted from an article in the Martin Marty Center Publication, December, 2004:
The revision in the criticism of theism has come from an unexpected source. British philosopher Anthony Flew, who taught at Oxford, Aberdeen, and Reading Universities, made his name in the middle of the last century around debates about how to verify or falsify arguments. He insisted that religious beliefs cannot meet scientific tests of validity and therefore have no rational grounds for assent. And so he argued for decades. The Chicago Sun Times reports that Flew, age 81, has changed his mind. Investigation into DNA has, he claims, "shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved." The emergence of life backs scientifically the rationality of the idea of "God." Flew quickly noted that his "God" is more of a deistic version than traditional theism, an intelligence or first cause rather than a personal God. As the Sun Times reports (12/10/04), Flew mused that "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins." Flew's God is about intelligence, purpose, and design but "utterly uninvolved in the lives of human beings. (Emphasis added)...
Sorry to break it up in here but NetSquirrel, let me ask the questions. lol.
Kidding, kidding. They are good questions. You're far ahead of me. And I'm just starting to fit the pieces together.
Thank you Drusilla and Clanad. I've read the other thread and it confused me. That led to the posting of this thread to lay intelligent design in layman's terms. From the way Drusilla puts it, yes it does seem like ID is introducing an alternative route to the origins of our well-being and it involves a superior being who molded us into who we are today.
Er, if I may dare put forward a suggestion. The biodiversity on this earth is tremendously .. diverse. The complexities of ecosystems and our interactions with everything animate or inanimate has got to come from some place.
I think in terms of complexity evolution has a better chance of winning the debate since evolution affects every living thing individually. Every single creature has its own line of evolution which advances at a parallel level and yet independently of another creature that is evolving at the same time.
On the other hand, there has to be a start to life on earth. Technically, something has to evolve from something else. The question is, what was the first thing that the second evolved from? And, where did the first thing come from when evidently it didn't evolve from anywhere?
I see a great chance of ID and evolution linking together to explain where we come from but from what I see, most prefer to take sides. Then again, ID and evolution may be just concepts in which no one can either prove or disprove.
This is just an extremely humble, low, not too educated opinion. Ignore it if you find it absurd and enjoy your day!
Kidding, kidding. They are good questions. You're far ahead of me. And I'm just starting to fit the pieces together.
Thank you Drusilla and Clanad. I've read the other thread and it confused me. That led to the posting of this thread to lay intelligent design in layman's terms. From the way Drusilla puts it, yes it does seem like ID is introducing an alternative route to the origins of our well-being and it involves a superior being who molded us into who we are today.
Er, if I may dare put forward a suggestion. The biodiversity on this earth is tremendously .. diverse. The complexities of ecosystems and our interactions with everything animate or inanimate has got to come from some place.
I think in terms of complexity evolution has a better chance of winning the debate since evolution affects every living thing individually. Every single creature has its own line of evolution which advances at a parallel level and yet independently of another creature that is evolving at the same time.
On the other hand, there has to be a start to life on earth. Technically, something has to evolve from something else. The question is, what was the first thing that the second evolved from? And, where did the first thing come from when evidently it didn't evolve from anywhere?
I see a great chance of ID and evolution linking together to explain where we come from but from what I see, most prefer to take sides. Then again, ID and evolution may be just concepts in which no one can either prove or disprove.
This is just an extremely humble, low, not too educated opinion. Ignore it if you find it absurd and enjoy your day!
When a long dominating belief system is on the brink of extinction, is it any wonder we now witness the grasping at straws? The "works in mysterious ways" contention, has lost its stranglehold. Behold mysticisms bankruptcy, and faiths ultimate legacy.
As parents come to realize that respect for the rational mind is crucial to the success of the human race then misleading the minds of innocent children will no longer be an option available to those whose contempt for human success and happiness on Earth is only an inducement to inculcate.
As parents come to realize that respect for the rational mind is crucial to the success of the human race then misleading the minds of innocent children will no longer be an option available to those whose contempt for human success and happiness on Earth is only an inducement to inculcate.
Interesting response from the Vatican here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/21/id_vatican_not_science/
In essence, their chief astronomer says 'ID is not science and should not be taught in science classes'.
Briefly, the chief astronomer for the Vatican is a Jesuit... that says it all for me...
Secondly, mibn..etc., you really need to acknowledge the facts. Christianity, while certainly weakening in the heady atmosphere of atheism pervading Europe and England, is alive and well in most other parts of the world. Especially in Africa and South America, the non-works, experiential based model of Christianity (Bible based) is literally exploding.
Thirdly, Gnisy, your statment that "... since evolution affects every living thing idividually..." is not self evident and lies at the heart of the overall debate and certainly this one. A study by scientists of all specialties raises great questions concerning the validity of Charles Darwin's theory. I can list those for you, but would soon exceed the 2000 character limit. Most people that want to debate the issue, really need to read Darwin to understand what the man was actually saying and how facts in evidence today, scientific in origin, simply do not support his conclusions.
One can pick and choose from Darwin, I suppose, but how intellectually honest is that?
Sorry, Clanad, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by writing 'Jesuits' in that way. It comes across as sneering - is that your intention?
Surely this isn't some sort of religious bigotry at work here? What 'flavour' are you? May we type that in italics and then say 'that says it all to me' and dismiss all your opinions so easily?
For someone who has, even within this thread, castigated others for being blinkered, your glasshouse certainly does appear to have very thick walls.
I need a dictionary to understand what you all are writing here. lol. Thanks all for your answers.
When it comes to science that cannot be proven or disproven within our lifetime, there are just some things you need to speculate on. Science for one is lousy in making decisive conclusions. Why, in almost every little new discovery or theory, there are loopholes that another scientist on the opposite end can pounce on and unravel your whole argument with. That is what makes Science acceptable. The fact that we can argue about it and still in the end, no one is the clear winner.
And Clanad, I appreciate all the long explanations but my tiny little head can only take in so many science-related words. Layman... layman... that's the keyword. But, I do understand Darwin's conclusions. I was taught that in school by a very dedicated Biology teacher who made everything sound so perfect that it was pretty hard for me to shake my beliefs in evolution until I did some reading of my own. Now, I wish she could just explain ID to me, from a scientific point of view.
When it comes to science that cannot be proven or disproven within our lifetime, there are just some things you need to speculate on. Science for one is lousy in making decisive conclusions. Why, in almost every little new discovery or theory, there are loopholes that another scientist on the opposite end can pounce on and unravel your whole argument with. That is what makes Science acceptable. The fact that we can argue about it and still in the end, no one is the clear winner.
And Clanad, I appreciate all the long explanations but my tiny little head can only take in so many science-related words. Layman... layman... that's the keyword. But, I do understand Darwin's conclusions. I was taught that in school by a very dedicated Biology teacher who made everything sound so perfect that it was pretty hard for me to shake my beliefs in evolution until I did some reading of my own. Now, I wish she could just explain ID to me, from a scientific point of view.
Waldo, I'd be happy to discuss that aspect with you... however, obvious from the posts on this and other threads is the fact that this is an opinion forum. Expressing my opinion seems to wrankle, whereas my being on the receiving end of snide opinions seems to be acceptable... So be it... I'm here of my own free will... but a study of the history of Jesuits leads one to question, as with many others of the cloth, why they even bother with the superficialities of faith when they are so obviously at odds with much of what Scripture actually says... in my humble opinion.
One could equally argue that the right-wing evengelicals who form the majority of ID supporters have rather failed to understand scripture when they do things like support the death penalty, bombing of abortion clinics etc etc etc. None of which is to ascribe such views to you, simply to make the point that whatever the flavour, I'll bet one can find instances where that flavour is at odds with what scripture says.
Am I allowed to say 'any opinion held by a person of evangelical persuasion can be summarily dismissed because I happen to disagree with the way in which some adhere to scriptural teachings'?
Gnisy, you certainly deserve a simple and direct explanation of intelligent design, as you've requested. Firstly, the theory of intelligent design is linked hip and thigh, with the observation of irreducible complexity. That simply states that observation of almost everything in nature, from single celled organisims to human beings, reveals that things are so radically complex, that, once reduced to their simplest yet still functional state, the complexity is still staggering. Protozoa, for example, like we find in pond scum...probably one of the simplest forms of life on the planet, are made up of inter-dependant systems, the removal of any one would cause the organisim to cease functioning. This trait simply cannot be explained by evolution. Evolution requires the forming of a chain of dna, a chemically linked chain of nucleotides, each of which consists of a sugar, a phosphate and one of five kinds of nucleobases ("bases"). , for example then becoming, through eons of time, complex creatures we observe today and in the fossil record. However, even getting to the most basic building block is an enormously complex process, again, the removal of even part of one process defeats the whole process.
Contd.
Contd.
This, then is at the heart of Intelligent Design... however, only one important part. I think this gives you an idea of the basis for the theory. The identity of the Designer is left to the individual inquirer, but the fact of design must still be given its due. The proposition that alien civilizations are trying to contact Earth is at the heart of the SETI experiment that has been going on for years. This tries to sort through all the random radio "static" for that one signal that could be from such a civilization. To do this, the scientists try to determine, through design detection, whether such a signal is valid. Same thing with Intelligent Design applied to origins...
You are certainly are allowed to so state, Waldo, with one caveat. You must firstly impart that the individual so speaking is representative of the entire body for whom he/she appears to be speaking...
I would disagree that it's right wing evangelicals who form the majority of ID supporters. I'd be happy to supply you with a list of outstanding scientific minds who are, at the very least, intrigued, if not fully in support of the idea...
yeah, but there's still other stuff it could av been. ID shouldn't overstate its case. To say that stuff is here, we can't show how all of it evolved, must be some clever guy, is just rubbish. Evolution offers a perfectly feasible answer to the question of why life forms we see around us contain so many parts designed for a purpose (pron.NY: porpoise).
How it all came to be from some random grit floating around, and how that random grit came to be is another. That it all came together as it did is quite unlikely, but by what measure? Stale, life free universes that we never seen? Maybe when universes come to be, they just can't help being in a configuration that breeds life all over the shop.
Or maybe there was some dude...but this is so very anologous to humans, probably in a way that forces the point excessively: we are dudes with minds, we take some junk and make it into purposeful stuff. The natural world is full of purposeful stuff, must have been some REALLY big, REALLY clever dude wot did THAT stuff. Maybe. Could well have just been some intelligent force, of some kind.
