Skip to comments.Intelligent Design The Scientific Alternative to Evolution
Posted on 09/13/2005 4:20:14 PM PDT by rob777
Sooner or later everyone asks the question, Where do we come from? The answer carries profound, life-molding implications. Until this question is answered we cannot solve another fundamental question that is key to ethics, religion, and the meaning of life (if any): Are we here for a purpose? There are two possible answers: the universe and life and its diversitynatural phenomenaare the product of 1) a combination of only natural laws and chance (the naturalistic hypothesis); or 2) a combination of law, chance, and designthe activity of a mind or some form of intelligence that has the power to manipulate matter and energy (the design hypothesis). The latter produces purpose, the former does not.
The naturalistic hypothesis is supported by theories of chemical evolution (with respect to the origin of the universe and of life) and by Darwinian evolution (with respect to the origin of the diversity of life). The design hypothesis is supported by the purposeful characteristics of exceedingly complex natural systems that are frequently described as fine tuned. Each hypothesis is densely laden with philosophical and religious baggage, and clear thinking is required in order to separate the
science from the philosophy, the evidence from the implications, and reality from imagination.
(Excerpt) Read more at intelligentdesignnetwork.org ...
I wonder what will make this one different from the other 9000.
And here is the problem. "Intelligent Design" simply meets none of the criteria for a scientific hypothesis. It is not capable of predicting or explaining new biological facts, which evolution does quite nicely.
Intelligent design is philosophy---NOT science, despite the fact that it uses "scientific-sounding" language.
Belief in God requires only faith.
Anyone who demands that science acquiese to their religious beliefs needs to work less on their science and more on their faith.
Liberals are living proof that the concept of Intelligent Design is a hoax...
But you miss the fact that evolution makes philosophical assumptions just the same as Intelligent Design or Creation.
I'm not taking the time to read a 35-page document just to see if it is ping-worthy, particularly since this is inherently ID and not creationist. Therefore, I am not breaking out my ping list for this one.
Nonsense. Evolution neither rules in nor rules out the existence of God.
Once again: true belief in God demands faith, not proof. Anyone who demands proof should examine why they even bother professing a belief in God.
But here you are - just can't resist. lol
It certainly rules out Genesis.
Snarks, could you try not to be bored so much? ;-)
I'm working on a large response to an unprecedented amount of responses to the rebuttal I authored. Be patient. It's one against thirty. The odds are to my liking. *Cracks knuckles*
Who designed the Designer? It's like asking what came before the Big Bang, after all.
(smile) I'll try to resist my nature a while longer, then, Dave. I'd say 'good luck', but you don't believe in luck...
Look at it this way. It's easy to imagine God never ending (dying), right? Conversely, look at it as if God never had a beginning either. It is beyond human grasp, because everything we see had a genesis, but that is the way I look at it.
Regardless of the truth or falsity of the hypothesis of intelligent design, your statement is demonstrably false.
For example, if your statement were correct, then it would have been impossible for humans to breed plants or animals. But of course humans have been able to breed plants and animals to meet specific "design criteria." In that realm we have literally thousands of examples where a) the explanation is intelligent design, and b) the predictive requirement is met by the fact that the breeders achieved their goals.
Another example is the production of human insulin by recombinant DNA techniques. The end result is bacteria or yeast that produce human insulin -- the predicted result, and again explained by intelligent design.
Thus we see that in specific cases that ID does in fact explain new biological facts. Further, the existence of design criteria (which were met in practice) satisfies the criterion of predictability.
Based on your criteria and actual examples, we must conclude that Intelligent Design is a valid theory. (The relevant sense of "valid" is 2 a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful [a valid theory] b : logically correct [a valid argument] [valid inference]).
Of course, to propose a valid hypothesis is not the same thing as verifying (i.e., to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of) that hypothesis. A person who puts forth an ID hypothesis is required to provide tests and data to support the claim.
At this point, however, we're faced not with a scientific problem, but rather a philosophical one.
If we apply your criteria more broadly, it seems to be the case that engineering in general does not meet your criteria for a scientific hypothesis. And perhaps that's accurate: engineering makes extensive use of scientific principles, but it is not possible to explain or predict the results of an engineering effort in the manner you're demanding for the development of life -- that is, using testable hypothesis about naturalistic processes. "Predictability" resides in the minds of the engineers, not in any fundamental natural processes. Moreover, the characteristics of an engineered object are often chosen for aesthetic as well as practical reasons.
The philosophical questions center around this disconnect between science and engineering.