Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same

Discovery Institute ^ | January 9, 2003 | John G. West, Jr.

[Heartlander]

Junior, that sounds like intelligent design! Now you might disagree with others about when it all started and stopped but I know you don’t believe it was all just random and without a purpose.

[Heartlander]

Yeah, I know, and the Information Theory is stealth ID. It’s all a big conspiracy.

[DallasMike]

Both are anti-science and anti-rational.

So I suppose you reject the scientific achievements of those from Galileo to Newton to Faraday, not to mention the many, many thousands of scientists today who believe in God? You are very, very narrowminded.

[Junior]

No it doesn't. ID says you can discern design within organisms. My theory says you can't because the organisms arose by natural processes -- albeit processes built into the original program, but natural processes nonetheless. In other words, if design is ever proven, my theory goes out the window.

[Heartlander]

But I know you have a reason for your theory. In other words, I know you don’t have this faith without reason or there would not be a reason for your faith.

[Junior]

It fits with my (not yours, not anyone else's) concept of a Perfect God. Such a being would not have to tamper with His creation, because such tampering implies it was not perfect to begin with.

[Heartlander]

OK… but what is the reason for your faith? Why do you think God did it?

[Tom Thomson]

There are approximately 10 trillion cells in the human body each with it's unique design for a specific function. During gestation the cells divide on a pre-programmed schedule. Each cell, when it divides (buds), is programmed to produce a specific new cell of unique specifications. This process continues until a complete body is formed and after birth the process continues to produce a mature body.

All the programming for this process is contained in the nucleus of any one of the 10 trillion cells. According to an article in the National Geographic Magazine... If all the info (programming) could be printed out on paper it would take 600 one-thousand page volumes to contain it.

Also, within each cell are tiny molecular chemical manufacturing machines which take in raw materials through some of the millions of port-holes in the cell shell and output chemicals to be utilized in other cells.

Logical Conclusion... The 10 trillion cells within the human body constitute a complete system of fantastic complexity. If you are unable to comprehend the foreqoing, then you need a refresher course in biology

My personal opinion... Due to the complexity of the aforementioned system, there is no other explanation other than Intelligent Design. Do the math... The 4 to 13 billion years attributed to the age of the earth is a drop in the bucket compared to the time needed for life to evolve by itself. Even if it did, how do you explain the existence of the raw materials which is another complex system by itself.

I'll say it one more time... Do the math. Life can't just happen. All these so-called scientific explanations are pure unadulterated BS. Total fairy tale hog-wash.

[Junior]

Because I believe in an afterlife, and it's just natural to have a "referee" overseeing the dispensation of that afterlife. Besides, Someone's been looking out for me the last few decades (last night my house nearly burned down -- if I'd arrived home an hour later it would have been gone).

[Dimensio]

The evolutionist CHOOSES to believe in the superiority of empiricism to explain reality. He accepts the world-view of naturalism

Full stop. Evolution != naturalism. You've been told this before, so why do you repeat this lie here?

The rest of your argument just pushes forth the false dilemma of either atheistic evolution or Biblical Creationism. There are other possibilities, but since it's not as convenient to consider that there's more than two options, you ignore them.

[Dimensio]

Waitaminnit. gore3000 said that you've lost your faith and that you're an atheist now. He wasn't lying, was he?

[Colinsky]

Intelligent design doesn't require a Designer. In one experiment, bacteria were placed in a broth that contained nutrients in a form that the bacteria could not use. According to standard evolutionary theory, only a random mutation could alter the bacteria's ability to metabolize the nutrient, and most mutations would end up harmful to the bacteria rather than helpful.

But in the experiment, the bacteria rapidly evolved exactly the changes they needed in order to adapt to their new environment. Bacteria aren't as dumb as you think.

[stanz]

ID is creationism wearing a fig leaf.

I love it!

[js1138]

A lot of words, none of which spell out the difference.

I was visiting in a hospital this noon, on the 5th floor looking down on the roof of an adjoining building. Looking at the array of conduits and ventelation ducts, I thought, if this building were "alive" rather than designed, those pipes wouldn't be laid out in straight lines with right-angle bends. They'd be strewn all over the place, wherever they'd fit. And they'd be more efficient.

[Physicist]

5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

This argument is my favorite. "Intelligent design is different from creationism because to believe otherwise is just no fair."

[jennyp]

DWar, your comparison of hypothetico-deductive science vs. purely deductive creationism is right on the mark!

But when you state it so clearly, that just makes it all the more clear why creationism is such an inferior way to understand the natural world. We who use the scientific method have "faith" in mundane things: Regularity, non-contradiction, the fundamental honesty of our senses (however flawed they may be from the ideal). You, OTOH, place your faith in feelings & wishful thinking, shaped by a 2500 year old collection of middle eastern stories. You have no choice but to explain away the mundane evidence whenever it conflicts with your old stories.

It helps you rhetorically to claim that we rely on faith just like you do, as it equates scientific knowledge with mere religious belief. Trying to paint a moral equivalence between two incompatible belief systems always helps the weaker one. But since you were so astute to recognize the fundamental dispute, surely you can see the qualitative difference between the systems?

[stanz]

When a Creator can be observed, touched, and examined then he can become part of anyone's reality. Scripture is a book of myths originally intended to explain phenomena which were otherwise inexplicable; a code of laws to frighten the masses into conformity and into the practice of moral conduct. Scripture is a comfort to those who accept the supernatural and not any guidebook into the realm of reason or logic which requires evidence to support or refute an hypothesis.

[Heartlander]

Junior, look, you know I am a Christian and I am not questioning your ‘faith’ but I am curious. You seemed to imply that there was some kind of front loading in the beginning of the universe. Do you believe this only because you believe in an afterlife?

By the way, I am glad your house is OK and I do understand what you mean about “someone looking out for me”.

[Doctor Stochastic]

There are approximately 10 trillion cells in the human body each with it's unique design for a specific function.

No, red blood cells are essentially indentical. They can even be exchanged between human beings. Et alia mutatus mutandis.

[wolfman]

The principles underlying the scientific method (testability, verification/falsification) arise from the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.