Heaven forbid I defend IDers, but… You are confusing IDers with YEC. YECs think God created the world as it exists today. IDers often accept evolution by natural selection, but claim that a Designer also had a hand in it in certain areas. One might even consider someone to be an IDer if he says: I believe that God initiated the very first living organism and then left everything else up to evolution by natural selection. That’s not what we generally mean by ID, but the thinking process is pretty much the same. I suspect I’ll get into a lot of trouble for that statement…
I certainly don’t think you should. You are exactly right in the scope you give to the concept of Intelligent Design. Yes, there are those who are of the Creationist strain. But there are many who only take the position that a Creator had to have played some role, even (as you say) His sole involvement was with the initial organisms. There are even those who believe that his involvement may have been earlier, creating a situation where organisms are free to develop in the same way that Evolutionists believe they did. It is cheap and disengenuous (albeit convenient) of its detractors to try to equate the beliefs and motives of IDers with those of Creationists. I do think that this often due to malice. But from most of the postings in this thread perhaps I’ve been to harsh, as ignorance seems to be the more likely culprit.
I do not think that is correct. Even when I lived in the Bible Belt I knew of very few people who believed that Genesis was to be taken literally or that the earth is 6,000(?) years old. Here on the west coast, of those I know who believe in a Creator, none ascribe to Creationism. Granted I am speaking from a tiny sample size, but I would venture that strict Creationists account for a minority. In other words, I think all those (with probably a few exceptions) who believe in God, or a God, are people who believe that our existence was born of intention. Of those, some are Christian. Of those, some are Creationists. In fact, the only people who do not ascribe to some flavor of intelligent design are Atheists and a minority who believe both in the existence of a God and that He (It) played no role in the development of either our selves or our cosmos.
Tomndebb took issue with me a while back for using such an expansive definition of ID, but I think unnecessarily. I do not see what is to be gained by allowing the term Intelligent Design to be defined so narrowly as to have it equate with Creationism. Let’s say Creationism is wrong, that does NOT mean that Intelligence played a role in creating us or the buliding blocks of the cosmos that then created us. Maybe the difference is just big ID and small id. But I choose to not cede an accurate term by having it marginalized by it’s detractors.
I do not know if Tomndebb would say that Theistic Evolution would fall under the heading of intelligent design (small i, small d). Tom?
I said “creationist”, not “young earth creationist”. But let me be more precise. In my experience, most IDers are simply folks who want to sneak religion into biology classes at schools. And the part of religion that they want to sneak in is that God is essential to understanding life and the universe.
Now, that’s just the type of ignorance that this Board is trying to fight. The reason men have nipples is so adolescent boys can torture each other with the purple nurple. Sheeze. Some of this stuff is so obvious.
Sorry I missed the distinction away from YECs in your second post. Now you may not want to get dragged into this, (and if not, just say so) but I’m curious, do you think that intelligent design (small i, small d) played any role in our being here?
I’ve recently had the priviledge of attending a lecture held by Kenneth Miller, the author of the textbook in question in the Dover and Ky cases. He did an excellent job in describing all of the arguments in being used in the trial. One of the things I noticed, was that Michael Behe’s argument has changed, as a result of someone (alright, Miller) shooting it all to hell.
(btw, both Miller and Behe are in comparable positions doing comparable research, with comparable levels of faith)
Behe’s basic argument of Irreducible Complexity:
Consider a moustrap. It’s made of 5 components. Take away any of those components, and it no longer works. Now consider the flagellum of a bacterium. It is composed of 50 components. Take away any, and it no longer works. If the mousetrap of five components was clearly designed, so too must be that flagellum, hence, the system is irreducibly complex, and must be designed.
Miller’s refutations:
No look. <he removes one component of a mousetrap; it still works. he removes two components, it still works…gets down to one component, it still works, but not as effectively> Several months go by; Miller is communicating with a colleague; the colleague points out, that’s not the way evolution works. ??? Colleague shows how mousetrap of missing pieces can still be useful. For instance, remove the bait and trigger, and it is an effective (if ugly) tie-clip. Miller goes ::smack:: This is surprising, because Miller has shown the comparable agrument in a biological setting. Going back to the flagellum: if you remove not one, but 40 of the 50 components, you have a protein injector that is still being used by other bacteria. Hence, the system is not irreducibly complex.
Behe’s Response:
No, no, no. What I meant was that if you reduce the system, it no longer works as it currently does.
My point: the theory of Irreducible Complexity has been most decidedly chipped away at, however, they are still using it. (I believe Behe wrapped up his testimony at the Dover trial earlier this week.)
That’s only in the USA. There are many ID’ers in (e.g.) Europe, whom claim no such thing. They argue that the intelligent design was only necessary to form the human mind or soul. Or that the ID started the universe much as Newton’s watchmaker.
“God of the Gaps” is a perfect use here. It is attributing to a supernatural being (the Intelligent Designer) the explanation to a physical phenomina, without looking for a physical explanation. The very definition of Intelligent Design needs a god/ supernatural being/ intelligence to explain a gap in our understanding. Science must take a materialistic or natural view to look for an answer. Any solution accepted in Science must be reproducible. As soon as you introduce a supernatural entity, you lose the ability to reproduce your results. Where did the IDer influence evolution? How did the IDer do it? If the IDer is not natural, we cannot answer these questions. It may turn out that we can’t answer the questions, but the only way to try to answer them is to assume the answer lies in the material world and attempt to make a material answer. This is why ID should be left out of science as a scientific theory, but should be included (in, say, a philosophy of science class or unit).
So to actually answer the OP, it would all depend on the ID believer. Some might argue that “we don’t understand the mind of G… I mean the IDer.” Like tomndebb pointed out, some (including Behe) would argue from a theory that is little different than that of a truly material evolutionist. It all depends on the level of involvement a particular ID proponent feels is necessary to explain the phenominom at hand.
I have seen the phrase “intelligent design” used to describe or identify theistic evolution. I do have a problem with that usage for the reason that, when spoken, no one can see capital letters.
Intelligent Design (capitalized) is a specific attempt to modify scientific thought, offering either an adjunct or an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. As such, (given its fundamental errors and lack of scientific support), it needs to be clearly identified so as to prevent confusion when someone wants to slide it into a science curriculum.
Theistic Evolution is merely a theological view of the science of evolutionary theory. Theodosius Dobzhansky, who was the architect of Neo-Darwinism, was clearly a theistic evolutionist. Since, from the perspective of theistic evolution, theology does not attempt to impose rules on science, I really prefer that people not use the same phrase meaning two conflicting approaches to scientific inquiry.
Given that no one can hear capital letters (and that people even tend to be sloppy regarding capitalization in text media), the use of “intelligent design” to identify theistic evolution is unnecessarily (and harmfully) confusing.
I would say that it’s certainly possible, but that it is neither necessary, nor is there any evidence that it did. Besides, it does nothing to answer the ulitmate question: how did it all start? After all, if there was a designer, then who designed the designer? I find it just as plausible that everything came from nothing as that there was an infinite series of intelligent designers.
I also accept that the human brain, having evloved on earth and having been under selective pressure to solve problems here on earth, may not be capable of understanding the ultimate mysteries of the universe.
As far as I understand it, there is no way to distinguish theistic evolution from non-theistic evolution. I would assume that Miller is a theistic evolutionist. I think it means, partially, that the game was rigged to produce us as an end-product, rather than humans appearing more or less accidentally. (In the sense that an intelligent dinosaur was just as plausible.)
I’ve seen Intelligent Design used to mean at least three different things. The first is the Behe definition, with evolution doing most of the work and ID filling in some gaps. The second is a renaming of Creationism (YEC or OEC) as ID to avoid the Supreme Court decisions. These people think the designer created species. I expect many of the unsophisticated ID supported believe in this definition, and would be upset if you told them ID meant that evolution was mostly true. I’ve seen it also meaning theistic evolution, or any brand of development of life involving a deity - like what magellan01 said.
And in response to the OP, I guess it depends on what brand of IDer you’re talking to. It seems to be of benefit to them to be confusing. The whole thing is using something closer to science as cover for creationism.
Nothing need be rigged. From God’s perspective of eternity, it makes no difference if the whole thing was left to sheer random chance. If there were a sextillion Big Bangs before we emerged, so what.
Hmm, my reading of theistic evolution is that mankind (in God’s image) is an inevitable outcome of creation - either through hacking evolution invisibly or through the careful setting of initial conditions. So sextillion Big Bangs would produces sextillion instances of us.
It’s classically unfalsifiable - but my understanding is its proponents know it is, and don’t pretend that its science.
But as JustAnotherGeek noted, we do have to keep God out of scientific theory. Not because we’re trying to disprove or destroy the idea of God, but because we can’t appeal to supernatural causes in science. Science is supposed to be (or at least aim at being) a self-consistent set of materialist explanations of natural phenomena.
That’s because material, non-supernatural causes are the only kinds we can make theoretical models of, or do reproducible experiments on. A supernatural God is simply not describable by science, so it’s self-defeating and counterproductive to attempt to invoke such a God in a scientific theory.
No matter how real God may or how much God may involved in the creation and continuation of the universe, science will never be able to detect that. Yes, that means science is a limited worldview that can’t process all possible realities, some of which, as John Mace noted, our brains may even be simply incapable of comprehending. Too bad. We sacrifice some ways of understanding the universe in order to get a certain level of consistency and testability.
That’s why ID’ers and others who keep on trying to invoke God to fill in incomplete scientific theories are painting themselves into a corner. Scientists will always keep on filling in the gaps with materialist, non-supernatural explanations and crowding God out again. Not because they’re anti-God or want to prove God doesn’t exist, but because non-material, supernatural beings have no place in science.
Wow, I step away for a day and get 2 pages of replies. Lots of points revolving around one aspect of my question, so I just want to clarify WHY I asked the question.
<<puts on smug face>> Like most intelligent, scientifically literate laypeople, I am a believer in the theory of evolution and natural selection. I realize there are aspects of the theory that have changed/will change over time as we learn more about the process, but I believe the evidence shows the overall idea to be utterly correct. I also believe that ID is a backdoor way to get a piece of religious fantasy with no basis in reality taught in public schools in the US, and other secular institutions worldwide. <<smug face off>>
Seriously, not saying that to be an ass, but in asking this question I think it’s important to understand where it’s coming from. I’m working with two guys who are otherwise intelligent, logical people, but when it comes to religion they are extremists. That is, every decision in their life is affected by their religion, including what TV show they are willing to work on (we’re all in TV production), and does it teach things contrary to their own beliefs. We’re talking fictional entertainment shows here, not pay-per-porn. These are the kinds of guys who think Harry Potter books are the work of the Devil.
Obviously, they believe in creationism and think the theory of evolution is utterly wrong. They are subscribers to ID lunacy, and as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, anything that pokes holes in their beliefs is explained away with some form or other of, “he works in mysterious ways.”
Now, neither of these guys knows enough about math/science to understand the complexity numbers or the ‘inner workings’ of ID, so getting into any real form of debate with them is a waste of time, because their ignorance is their shield.
So the question I have is genuine. I am really trying to understand how someone more in tune with how ID is supposed to work can believe that nipples are intentionally designed into the process on men. The same can be asked for the appendix or cocyx, or any number of what would clearly be design flaws if you and I were building a lifeform from the ground up.
Now someone said that there are ID’ers who also believe in natural selection being involved in the process. But the reason I pointed out in the OP the “nipples on men are for fun only, created by a god that doesn’t like sex” is because from what I can tell, the vast majority of ID believers tend to be bordering on fundamentalist beliefs, where – even if they publicly say the DESIGNER can be ANYONE, even an alien, gasp! – we all know they mean it is really the Christian god, who opposes sex for anything other than procreation. Hey, I don’t preach the stuff, it’s just what’s thrown out there in their demands for supreme court justices. “Must oppose abortion, evolution, sex.”
So again, aiming for someone with a higher understanding of the principles of ID – that’s like saying someone who knows the inner workings of the Starship Enterprise – how do they justify obvious mistakes while attributing them to genuine intent. That’s what I can’t figure out.
Yes, I agree, and would only add the qualifier, “…within the boundaries of scientific thought.” IOW, evolution may well be impossible without God, and I don’t think a scientist would categorically contradict this contention. In fact, he’d point out that it’s not falsifiable at all. Science is just not concerned with that connection–nor should it be–since it deals with issues outside the realm of science. I just think the point needs to be consistently re-emphasized (not that you require it!), that a belief in God and a belief in evolution are perfectly compatible; they just don’t get covered in science class, IMO.
Even a spiritual being needs a place,just because it is unseen doen’t mean it doesn’t need to be somewhere…other wise it is nowhere. Some say God or the designer is in heaven,what is that, and was it there before God came, if it was always there then God and heaven is the same thing.
You answered your question. All ID proponents, whether they are merely trying not to call themselves creationsist, or they are as knowledgible as Behe, at some point interject faith in to their science. Even Kenneth Miller (causiously) introduces some.* I think that way to debate them is to ask them, “why must miracles not have an explanation?” So what if we can explain the process that guided the creation of life on this planet? If God made us in his image, aren’t we supposed to try to understand his mind? Doesn’t that understanding bring us closer to him?
The problem here is that they are arguing from a position of faith, and you are arguing from a position of science. All of the best science in the world will not convince someone who does not want to be swayed. You can debate for an eternity with them, point out the holes in their knowledge, present them with evidence they claim is missing, and make completely rational arguments for your side. In the end, someone who has closed their mind to your scientific arguments ain’t gonna agree with ya! So your only recourse is to argue through their faith.
I would say, if you are thinking of trying to convert your colleagues, don’t expect <ahem> miracles. I think the best response I have ever gotten from a “born again believer” was from simply pointing out that it is not just creationism or material evolution; I explained many of the shades of grey in between (and pointed out one group of people - Flat Earthers - who were even more “fundamental” than he was).
While at Kenneth’s talk, I got to ask him about his views on sociobiology, or the branch of science that is trying to use evolution theory to explain human behavior. His response was basically that he thought it was interesting, but flawed. From this I infer he believes that a God made a soul or mind, but left all other aspects to material evolution. See my previous post, if you don’t know who Kenneth Miller is.
