|
1 Sep 2005, 18:56
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
|
Intelligent Design
I am having a (very slow) argument with someone about ID.
It is in someones blog and with the time difference and all it is going to be a very long process.
But basically my question is this:
What is the difference between Creationism and ID?
they are pretty much the same thing but do they differ in any respect apart from the name?
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
|
|
|
1 Sep 2005, 20:43
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Creationism is an alternative to the big bang whereas ID is an alternative to evolution. One concerns the origin of the universe, the other has to do with life on earth. There's overlap though because we are all holists in our theories these days and if the universe only began 6000 years ago then macroevolution wouldnt have had time to occur
Last edited by Nodrog; 1 Sep 2005 at 20:50.
|
|
|
1 Sep 2005, 20:45
|
#3
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
Creationism is an alternative to the big bang whereas ID is an alternative to evolution. One concerns the origin of the universe, the other has to do with life on earth.
|
What nod said.
|
|
|
1 Sep 2005, 21:05
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
|
Re: Intelligent Design
I thought the basic premise of ID was that the universe (and everything in it) was too complex t have been an accident so it must have been designed.
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
|
|
|
1 Sep 2005, 21:10
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Intelligent Design
The argument from design is one of the classical philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and is still regularly invokved by theists. A secular version of this argument involves irreducible complexity, which is sometimes used in support of ID. But irreducible complexity is a purely scientific matter.
|
|
|
1 Sep 2005, 21:22
|
#6
|
USS Oklahoma
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Creationists fly directly in the face of all scientific evidence of the age of the world and say that the Bible is the literal word of god. Thus, you can figure the true age of the world by adding up the ages of folks and tieing them to historical events which can be dated. Everything was all done in 6,000 + years. Dinosaur skeletons and other prehistoric artifacts, including carbon dating are all either: 1) things distributed by Satan to confuse the faithful and make them skeptical of god; or, 2) they were put there by god as a test of faith in his word.
Intelligent Design is an attempt to reconcile creationism with science. It basicly says that the Bible is not literal but figurative. That the first day of creation may have lasted for billions of years. That an intelligent hand (god) was at work in the guiding of evolution.
There is then the "watch maker" argument. If you look at a watch, do you think it could have created itself in all of its complexity. If you think this could not happen, then, since the watch maker must have been more complex than the watch, there must have been a mind behind the creation of the watch maker (man). It of course begs the question of which is more complex the watch maker or the being that created the watch maker so therefor there must be some super god who created god.
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
|
|
|
1 Sep 2005, 21:38
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,174
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Intelligent design, as nod said, is an alternative to evolution, because in some circumstances, certain biological processes/cells etc, are too complex to have randomly evolved and cannot evolve from smaller ones as it would not work. It's basically evolution, but saying God added some stuff. What annoys me about it, is it creators are trying to get it taught alongside evolution in schools, skipping past the regulations governing what is and isnt taught.
__________________
If one person is in delusion, they're called insane.
If many people are in delusion, it's called a religion.
|
|
|
1 Sep 2005, 22:04
|
#8
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniborp
because in some circumstances, certain biological processes/cells etc, are too complex to have randomly evolved
|
are claimed too complex.
|
|
|
1 Sep 2005, 22:18
|
#9
|
USS Oklahoma
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniborp
Intelligent design, as nod said, is an alternative to evolution, because in some circumstances, certain biological processes/cells etc, are too complex to have randomly evolved and cannot evolve from smaller ones as it would not work. It's basically evolution, but saying God added some stuff. What annoys me about it, is it creators are trying to get it taught alongside evolution in schools, skipping past the regulations governing what is and isnt taught.
|
What annoys me is that 65% of the American people, in a recent pole, wouldn't see anything wrong in teaching it is science classes.
IN SCIENCE CLASSES, FFS!
If there were any SCIENTIFIC argument which supported it then it should be taught, however, since there isn't any body of SCIENTIFIC evidence to support it, then is has no place in SCIENCE classes.
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
|
|
|
1 Sep 2005, 22:30
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
|
Re: Intelligent Design
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
these people would disagree. A lot.
thay have lots of arguments why evolution is wrong, but I can't see any of the ID "facts" they constantly refer to.
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
|
|
|
1 Sep 2005, 22:38
|
#11
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by dda
What annoys me is that 65% of the American people, in a recent pole, wouldn't see anything wrong in teaching it is science classes.
IN SCIENCE CLASSES, FFS!
If there were any SCIENTIFIC argument which supported it then it should be taught, however, since there isn't any body of SCIENTIFIC evidence to support it, then is has no place in SCIENCE classes.
|
http://www.venganza.org/
|
|
|
1 Sep 2005, 22:38
|
#12
|
Insomniac
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by dda
What annoys me is that 65% of the American people, in a recent pole, wouldn't see anything wrong in teaching it is science classes.
IN SCIENCE CLASSES, FFS!
If there were any SCIENTIFIC argument which supported it then it should be taught, however, since there isn't any body of SCIENTIFIC evidence to support it, then is has no place in SCIENCE classes.
|
I agree.
If they insist on teaching it, then do it in a religious studies class since the subejct relies on religion to give it meaning.
It has no place in science which relies on independantly reproducable results to prove or disprove theories
|
|
|
2 Sep 2005, 01:06
|
#13
|
Insanity Prawn Boy!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In a bush where you can't find me
Posts: 2,474
|
Re: Intelligent Design
What really annoys me about ID is that if so-called "scientists" (anyone who believes this shit is clearly not a scientist) then it will lead to the halting of scientific advancement. If they can't explain anything, instead of trying to work it out they'll just end up putting it down to "the creator"
__________________
They shall not grow old, as we who are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them.
|
|
|
2 Sep 2005, 14:43
|
#14
|
7 Dimensional Puddleduck
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Not where I want to be :(
Posts: 1,556
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Copied from a mate's blog:
I've come up with a theory for y'all...
Cos I know that you're all hard core religious nutters!
1st'ly... For this theory, we'll assume that God exists.
Now... This 'faith' business is a bit odd eh?
People, who have blind faith, shall in some way be rewarded, such as going to a sweet Christian Heaven etc.
Now, here's the point...
What if, the people that God really is interested in, are infact the non believers, the questioners, the people who show aptitude and intelligence for not subscribing to this 'Blind Faith' rubbish! Cos let's face it... It just doesn’t make any ****ing sense!
So, God sets a trap by saying, Have faith, live by these rules & you'll be rewarded in Heaven and I might just sling in 70 virgins for good measure my son!
C'mon... would God be interested in a load of 'Yes' men? - 'course not!
The Believers are the true infidel!
We are the chosen ones!
__________________
<CmdrCyrax> I'm sure GDers are bastions of the civilized world.
|
|
|
2 Sep 2005, 15:15
|
#15
|
nomen est omen
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 1,095
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
I agree.
If they insist on teaching it, then do it in a religious studies class since the subejct relies on religion to give it meaning.
It has no place in science which relies on independantly reproducable results to prove or disprove theories
|
__________________
Me=Hans_Blix
Views expressed are those of the author and not of any company or organisation I am associated with. Electronic communication can be forged and the integrity of this message is not guaranteed.
|
|
|
3 Sep 2005, 14:01
|
#16
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,174
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
are claimed too complex.
|
thats true, scientists did later find less complex systems in other organisms.
__________________
If one person is in delusion, they're called insane.
If many people are in delusion, it's called a religion.
|
|
|
7 Sep 2005, 07:01
|
#17
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
What is the difference between Creationism and ID?
|
About fifteen IQ points.
Intelligent design is basically the overestimation of the extrapolative powers of experience. Hume had some good criticisms, why only one creator, all designers work on pre-existing material, all designers are physical beings and why aren't animals moral. ID is opposed to natural selection (more than evolution per se) on the grounds of supposed irreducible complexity. However there's no system which is even vaguely accepted as being irreducibly complex by a decent number of biologists because their arguments are really really really shit and badly wrong.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
7 Sep 2005, 07:18
|
#18
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Intelligent Design
I dont think ID is committed to monotheism - afaik it just requires that there be _some_ intelligent work involved during the design process in order to get around irreducible complexity. A theory involving genetic manipulation by space aliens from Venus should really classify as 'intelligent design'.
|
|
|
7 Sep 2005, 07:24
|
#19
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Yeah but most IDers support some of those ideas so you can use those arguments to quickly point out logical inconsistencies. Obviously hume is slightly dated but he's still of some use. Which is more than can be said for the modern reformulations of ID which are ****ing horrible and prove nothing anyways.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
Last edited by JonnyBGood; 7 Sep 2005 at 07:53.
|
|
|
7 Sep 2005, 07:38
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Afaik Hume thought the argument from design was valid even though he showed that speculation about the identity of the designer was massively undetermined by all possible evidence. Pre-darwinians just couldnt conceptualize how you can have seemingly inteligent design-work done by brute forces alone, and Hume wasnt able to commit himself strongly to a materialist explanation because he couldnt fathom how it would work.
But ID is a scientific theory centered around the notion of irreducible complexity, and doesnt necessarily commit itself to any particular entity doing the designing. ID interpretations which postulate non-observable designers will be outside the realm of science because of semantics, but theres nothing stopping people claiming that the designers are naturalist entities like aliens or Zeus.
|
|
|
7 Sep 2005, 07:53
|
#21
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
Creationism is an alternative to the big bang whereas ID is an alternative to evolution.
|
not exactly. creationism attempts to be an explanation for everything from the Big Bang through to the origin of species, whereas ID is generally the claim that not everything can be explained through making naturalistic assumptions, and that certain structures require an intelligence to come about. touted examples are things like the blood clotting system and the bacterial flagellum.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........
ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
|
|
|
7 Sep 2005, 07:56
|
#22
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
But ID is a scientific theory centered around the notion of irreducible complexity, and doesnt necessarily commit itself to any particular entity doing the designing. ID interpretations which postulate non-observable designers will be outside the realm of science because of semantics, but theres nothing stopping people claiming that the designers are naturalist entities like aliens or Zeus.
|
one thing that it is not is a scientific theory. It makes no predictions, it has no model, it has no method for finding design, the maths that some attempt to use, such as Dembski's version of information, is a load of crap, and even concepts such as irreducible complexity have been repeatedly shown to be evolvable.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........
ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
|
|
|
7 Sep 2005, 08:00
|
#23
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
Afaik Hume thought the argument from design was valid even though he showed that speculation about the identity of the designer was massively undetermined by all possible evidence. Pre-darwinians just couldnt conceptualize how you can have seemingly inteligent design-work done by brute forces alone, and Hume wasnt able to commit himself strongly to a materialist explanation because he couldnt fathom how it would work.
But ID is a scientific theory centered around the notion of irreducible complexity, and doesnt necessarily commit itself to any particular entity doing the designing. ID interpretations which postulate non-observable designers will be outside the realm of science because of semantics, but theres nothing stopping people claiming that the designers are naturalist entities like aliens or Zeus.
|
Hume's conclusion in dialogues concerning natural religion was that a more modest god was called for than that proposed by ID supporters at the time. His argument was against the christian argument to design of that period obviously not the modern argument to design. I would still say that it's a highly useful starting point though.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
7 Sep 2005, 10:38
|
#24
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
I dont think ID is committed to monotheism - afaik it just requires that there be _some_ intelligent work involved during the design process in order to get around irreducible complexity. A theory involving genetic manipulation by space aliens from Venus should really classify as 'intelligent design'.
|
Only to an extent. Saying intelligent Aliens were involved in our evolution merely forces us to restate the question - how did they evolve?
|
|
|
7 Sep 2005, 11:30
|
#25
|
share the <3
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 2,709
|
Re: Intelligent Design
hmm i was under the mistaken impression that ID was somehow linked to or influenced by the anthropic principle, but apparently it isn't to do with universe creation. Thanks for the clear up, nice thread!
__________________
Sophie is hotter than you
though ive gone off her now; the way Susanna Reid squirms around on sml is, however, awesome
|
|
|
7 Sep 2005, 12:39
|
#26
|
7 Dimensional Puddleduck
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Not where I want to be :(
Posts: 1,556
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Why has noone mentioned Intelligent Falling yet?
__________________
<CmdrCyrax> I'm sure GDers are bastions of the civilized world.
|
|
|
7 Sep 2005, 14:11
|
#27
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusselt
hmm i was under the mistaken impression that ID was somehow linked to or influenced by the anthropic principle, but apparently it isn't to do with universe creation. Thanks for the clear up, nice thread!
|
Intelligent design is vaguely related to the anthropic principle. Intelligent design, or the argument to design, is one of the two types of teleological arguments used to assert the existence of god. The other type, the argument from order, would typically include some reference to the anthropic principle. I don't think this has actually been stated in this thread, apologies if it has. (I think the words design and order are sort of self-explanatory as regards the differences in the arguments).
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
7 Sep 2005, 18:22
|
#28
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
Only to an extent. Saying intelligent Aliens were involved in our evolution merely forces us to restate the question - how did they evolve?
|
If the intelligent designer is postulated because of (eg) irreducible complexity then maybe they could have evolved via natural selection on a planet which followed a different path through genespace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical Edward
one thing that it is not is a scientific theory. It makes no predictions, it has no model, it has no method for finding design, the maths that some attempt to use, such as Dembski's version of information, is a load of crap, and even concepts such as irreducible complexity have been repeatedly shown to be evolvable.
|
A bad scientific theory is still a scientific theory. Besides, predictions arent the only criteria on which to assess the merits of a theory - its ability to integrate known facts is as important as its ability to predict new ones (not that ID seems to do either).
Last edited by Nodrog; 7 Sep 2005 at 18:31.
|
|
|
12 Sep 2005, 13:51
|
#29
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
A bad scientific theory is still a scientific theory. Besides, predictions arent the only criteria on which to assess the merits of a theory - its ability to integrate known facts is as important as its ability to predict new ones (not that ID seems to do either).
|
I don't recall saying they were the only criteria. The problem with integrating known facts though, is that almost anything can do it. Enter the newest enemy of the ID paradigm:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
(which seems to be rather successful in the media.)
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........
ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
|
|
|
12 Sep 2005, 13:57
|
#30
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Intelligent Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical Edward
I don't recall saying they were the only criteria. The problem with integrating known facts though, is that almost anything can do it. Enter the newest enemy of the ID paradigm:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
(which seems to be rather successful in the media.)
|
I'd join that religion.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:39.
| |