Define "Intelligent Design"


#1

I am trying to get a handle on “Intelligent Design” (ID) definition and it seems if I refer to the Wedge document, court rulings (PA ruling), opinion pages, newspaper articles, etc. I am told by others that I am getting “misinformed.”

From my interpretation, ID is not science (if science is defined as something that can be tested); ID is a combination political/religious movement.

I have been told ID has existed for thousands of years, beginning with the ancient Greek philosophers, and that it is not new nor is it a result of the Fundamentalist movement that originated in the US in the 19th century and gained steam after the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial.

Who out here has a clear clean grasp of ID and can help express it without sending me to more internet sites?

Thanks! Peace!

Jim


#2

I thought it was just a diffrent name for Creationism. I guess I was off.


#3

i was under the impression that ID basically was
the idea that… evolution of species and of the
universe had occured, but not as a radom action,
but rather was guided by an Intellignece, ie: God…

i always thought of ID as merging the idea of a
creator or director, God, with scientifically
measured changes in the things we can observe…

but, i tend to think of things in a simplistic way…

:slight_smile:


#4

ID is based on science just not empirical sciences. ID is a philosophical position and not a religious one. Quite simply ID is based on this premise - Order implies Intelligence. This means that since there is observable order to the universe there must be an intelligent creative force behind that order. There are many different ways of approaching ID and some are more focused on a God who sustains the universe or a God who is nothing more than the first cause. Each brand of ID is slightly different but holds the above issues in common.

Really, I think, the problem is the definition of science these days. Strictly speaking the traditional definition of a science is “the investigation of a Direct Object.” However, post-enlightenment such things like philosophy and theology have been “kicked-out” out the science genra by intellectual pinheads who feel that science should only include such disciplines that use inductive reasoning.


#5

[quote=jim1130]I am trying to get a handle on “Intelligent Design” (ID) definition and it seems if I refer to the Wedge document, court rulings (PA ruling), opinion pages, newspaper articles, etc. I am told by others that I am getting “misinformed.”

From my interpretation, ID is not science (if science is defined as something that can be tested); ID is a combination political/religious movement.

I have been told ID has existed for thousands of years, beginning with the ancient Greek philosophers, and that it is not new nor is it a result of the Fundamentalist movement that originated in the US in the 19th century and gained steam after the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial.

Who out here has a clear clean grasp of ID and can help express it without sending me to more internet sites?

Thanks! Peace!

Jim
[/quote]

ID is not the denial of evelution. ID simply says that the universe has a complex design which suggests some kind of designer. Scientists who haven’t sacrificed their brains to the politics of the modern scientific establishement have come to this very reasonable conclusion. Now as for it being scientific, that depends on what you mean. Modern society uses the word science, usually, in reference to empirecism. However, empericism is not the only way to determine truth and, in fact, deductive logic is much better at determining truth because it PROVES truths, whereas, empericism only establishes levels of certainty. In past times, deductive reasoning was considered science and thus philosophy that employed deductive logic was considered science. That is why the medevels said, "Theology is the queen of sciences and philosophy is her hand maid. If we use the original defiinition of science: the reasonable and systematic study of basicly anything, then, of course, ID design is a science because the existence of God has been proven through the use of reason alone. Socrates did it, then Thomas Aquinas polished the proof and modern philosophers have gone further in the process of fine tuning the proof for the existence of God.
Yet, these proofs are not based on empericism and, for this reason, are not considered science by modern empericists who have hijakced the word science for their own purposes in an act of philosophical elitism. It is a bit sneaky on their part. If something agrees with their limited and falicious materialistic philosophy, they call it science. If it does not they play a psycho-social game with peoples’ minds, undermining other sciences by not calling them sciences. Even if the science that proves the existence of God is based on better reasoning than their empericism, the snear their noses at it.
Even though we need not use empericism to prove the existence of God, we can though. This is the argument based on design that most people mean when they are discussing ID. The argument goes as follows: The universe displays complex design, and thus suggest a designer. This is based on emperical data of the world around us. We look at a cell, DNA, the human mind, all emperical data, and we see a design and understand that a design requires a designer. Thus, this arguement does fit into the emperical categories that allow for it to be defined as “science” by modern empericists. They may object: But the scientific method is not employed! Its not testable, predictable, and repeatable. Well, In response I answer that neither is the science of evolution or “big bang” cosmology. We cannot precdict how they would work in the future, we cannot repaeat them, or test them because they are unrepeatable events from the past that are either too grand in scale or take too long to occur of us to test them. Yet we have a pretty good idea that they did happen, even without the scientific method, because of of the emperical data available. The same is true with ID. We have enough emeperical data to suggest that ID is a reasonable theory and probably a true theory. For anyone to deny this reality, one must remove their brain, and put away some where for safe keeping.


#6

[quote=jim1130]I am trying to get a handle on “Intelligent Design” (ID) definition and it seems if I refer to the Wedge document, court rulings (PA ruling), opinion pages, newspaper articles, etc. I am told by others that I am getting “misinformed.”
[/quote]

Who told you that?
I imagine that both sides pulled out the stops for that case
Is someone implying that the pro-ID witnesses misrepresented their case in the trial?

[quote=jim1130]From my interpretation, ID is not science (if science is defined as something that can be tested); ID is a combination political/religious movement.
[/quote]

Yup, that is pretty much it.

[quote=jim1130]I have been told ID has existed for thousands of years, beginning with the ancient Greek philosophers, and that it is not new nor is it a result of the Fundamentalist movement that originated in the US in the 19th century and gained steam after the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial.
[/quote]

Sure the idea of a designer has been around a long time whether it is Prometheus or Yahweh or someone/thing else. What is new is calling it science. (Probably because science it self is new) As the PA ruling indicated many of the ID texts were just “creation science” texts with the word “designed” replacing “created”

It is interesting to note that this only appears to be an issue in a certain North American Country…a country with a large and politically active fundamentalist evangelical Protestant segment of the population.
I don’t think that it is coincidental that the USA has also a long anti-intellectual bias.
I think that also comes the original Puritan settlers; after all if everyman can make up his own determinations about scripture without listening to the “experts” in the Magesterium then why should something more mundane like science be left to experts either?

[quote=jim1130]Who out here has a clear clean grasp of ID and can help express it without sending me to more internet sites?

Thanks! Peace!

Jim
[/quote]

Sorry Jim. I just can’t understand where those folks are coming from. Not to make uncharitable generalizations but many appear to have incorrect notions about what evolution actually says. I’m often reminded of what Fulton Sheen said about people not hating real Catholicism just their incorrect notions about Catholicism.


#7

[quote=jim1130]I am trying to get a handle on “Intelligent Design” (ID) definition and it seems if I refer to the Wedge document, court rulings (PA ruling), opinion pages, newspaper articles, etc. I am told by others that I am getting “misinformed.”

From my interpretation, ID is not science (if science is defined as something that can be tested); ID is a combination political/religious movement.

I have been told ID has existed for thousands of years, beginning with the ancient Greek philosophers, and that it is not new nor is it a result of the Fundamentalist movement that originated in the US in the 19th century and gained steam after the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial.

Who out here has a clear clean grasp of ID and can help express it without sending me to more internet sites?

Thanks! Peace!

Jim
[/quote]

It can be difficult to “get a handle” on Intelligent Design because there are at least two different meanings for the phrase. ID1 is the assertion that an intelligent being created the universe and all that is in it. In other words creationism in its widest sense, including everything from YEC to theistic evolution. This is the meaning that goes back thousands of years.

The second meaning, ID2, says that there are biological structures that cannot have evolved and that were put there by the direct action of the intelligent designer. This is much more contrversial, and is associated with the Discovery Institute, the Wedge Strategy Dembski, Behe etc. This meaning goes back to about 1987 when the Supreme Court ruled that “Creation Science” could not be taught in American public schools because it was religion. At that point Creationists needed something else to replace Creation Science so they thought up ID2 instead. This is well covered in the papers from the Dover trial. I suspect that now that ID2 has been found wanting by the court in Dover that some new scheme will be forthcoming.

rossum


#8

[quote=mosher]ID is based on science just not empirical sciences. ID is a philosophical position and not a religious one. Quite simply ID is based on this premise - Order implies Intelligence. This means that since there is observable order to the universe there must be an intelligent creative force behind that order. There are many different ways of approaching ID and some are more focused on a God who sustains the universe or a God who is nothing more than the first cause. Each brand of ID is slightly different but holds the above issues in common.

Really, I think, the problem is the definition of science these days. Strictly speaking the traditional definition of a science is “the investigation of a Direct Object.” However, post-enlightenment such things like philosophy and theology have been “kicked-out” out the science genra by intellectual pinheads who feel that science should only include such disciplines that use inductive reasoning.
[/quote]

But those pinheads developed the machines we are using to communicate. Hard to argue with success. Long live the pinheads!


#9

error


#10

A man, or an elephant, or a even a simple bacteria contains much information - much more that you can probably store on your hard drive, or even a large collection of discs.

The universe started with a Big Bang [a theory once disparaged and forbidden because it sounds like “Let there be light”, but now accepted scientific theory]; a ball of thermal energy. This somehow coalesced into atoms which conglomerated into vegetables and animals.

The problem is to show scientifically how that original ball of energy contained all the information present in a man, an elephant and all else. Where did that information come from?


#11

[quote=Joe Kelley]… This somehow coalesced into atoms which conglomerated into vegetables and animals.
[/quote]

“somehow” :confused:
The general processes are pretty well understood

[quote=Joe Kelley]The problem is to show scientifically how that original ball of energy contained all the information present in a man, an elephant and all else. Where did that information come from?
[/quote]

Why would the original “ball” have to contain the "information present in a man”? :confused:


#12

[quote=Joe Kelley]A man, or an elephant, or a even a simple bacteria contains much information - much more that you can probably store on your hard drive, or even a large collection of discs.

The universe started with a Big Bang [a theory once disparaged and forbidden because it sounds like “Let there be light”, but now accepted scientific theory]; a ball of thermal energy. This somehow coalesced into atoms which conglomerated into vegetables and animals.

The problem is to show scientifically how that original ball of energy contained all the information present in a man, an elephant and all else. Where did that information come from?
[/quote]

Perhaps the notion that the information had to exist in that ball is flawed? Perhaps information is a product of potential? Perhaps we don’t know what we are talking about?


#13

What is the source of information?

Do you maintain that it just happens?

Is there a source for these postings I am reading? Maybe you don’t esist and these posts just happen.


#14

[quote=Joe Kelley]What is the source of information?

Do you maintain that it just happens?

Is there a source for these postings I am reading? Maybe you don’t esist and these posts just happen.
[/quote]

I don’t know the source of information. Do you? What is information?

I maintain nothing. I don’t think we know enough to do anything other than speculate.

There is no source for the postings you are reading. I do not exist.


#15

[quote=Ortho]But those pinheads developed the machines we are using to communicate. Hard to argue with success. Long live the pinheads!
[/quote]

Empiricism has its merits but it cannot answer nor solve any of the real issues or problems in the world. Inductive reasoning cannot answer the burning questions about life that deductive reasoning can. This is why I believe that very little human development has happened since the middle ages.

Because of conservation laws. At least everything had to be there in potencia.

lol


#16

ID according to the church and the bible:

First Vatican Council

CCC 286 Vatican Council I (1870): DS 3026 [Against those denying natural theology]. If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things with which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."


#17

[quote=mosher]Empiricism has its merits but it cannot answer nor solve any of the real issues or problems in the world. Inductive reasoning cannot answer the burning questions about life that deductive reasoning can. This is why I believe that very little human development has happened since the middle ages.
[/quote]

REALLY?? Would you like to give up modern medicine, dentistry, modern information technology, modern jurisprudence, the death of feudalism, modern strictures against slavery and racism, electric light, central heating, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, Spenser, Eliot, Beethoven, Bach, Dickens, Elgar, Goethe, Dante, Owen, Rosenberg, the understanding of Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Weinberg, Salam, Crick, Watson, Darwin, Feynman, a vast and old universe, general anaesthetic, the inventions of Thomas Crapper, Lister, and Fleming, reason, universal suffrage, freedom of expression, the internet, the peace and prosperity of Western Europe and the USA? Would you, knowing what you know today, willingly go back to 1100AD and the conflicts, superstitions, feudalism, arbitrariness and agony of the mediaeval world? Would you really?

Because of conservation laws. At least everything had to be there in potencia.

No. There is no such thing as the law of the conservation of information.

Alec
evolutionpages.com


#18

So if someone, without any kind of religious background, comes up with a theory, that since many things in nature do not seem to be random, there must be a pattern, and therefore, something must have determined what that pattern would be, that would have to be, by neccesity, the same as teaching school children to be Christian? That is a bit of a stretch.

What if the intelligent designer was a being left over from a previous universe, whose thoughts happened to guide the direction of the formation of the universe? What if there is another dimention where other beings, upon finding this realty, managed to alter and shape the universe as it develops. Both of these are possibilities under Inteligent Design, and are vastly different than Christianity. The point is, as a theory, it should only be mentioned that according to Intelligent Design Theory, something guided the processes that led to the current development of the universe.

Vehemently making sure that no mention of any power greater than Chaos is just as zealous as not allowing one to learn about science because it may challeng ones religious beleifs . . .


#19

[quote=mosher]Empiricism has its merits but it cannot answer nor solve any of the real issues or problems in the world. Inductive reasoning cannot answer the burning questions about life that deductive reasoning can. This is why I believe that very little human development has happened since the middle ages.

Because of conservation laws. At least everything had to be there in potencia.

lol
[/quote]

Modern natural science is limited in its scope. Those limitations are self imposed and a condition necessary for it to meet its goals. Its goals may not include answering burning questions. Modern natural science answers other questions.

Those who want to answer the burning questions have other tools and disciplines available. They are free to use them to meet their needs.


#20

[quote=Ortho]Modern natural science is limited in its scope. Those limitations are self imposed and a condition necessary for it to meet its goals. Its goals may not include answering burning questions. Modern natural science answers other questions.

Those who want to answer the burning questions have other tools and disciplines available. They are free to use them to meet their needs.
[/quote]

Exactly my point.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.