Posted on 04/11/2005 10:25:55 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
"Intelligent design." It's been in the news a lot lately. Lawsuits over textbook stickers, the presentation of evolution and the legality of presenting alternatives, have thrust the term into public awareness.
But just what is intelligent design? To hear some folks talk, you'd think it's a scam to sneak Genesis into science classrooms. Yet intelligent design has nothing to do with the six days of creation and everything to do with hard evidence and logic.
Intelligent design (ID) is grounded on the ancient observation that the world looks very much as if it had an intelligent source. Indeed, as early as the fifth century BC, the Greek philosopher and astronomer Anaxagoras concluded, "Mind set in order … all that ever was … and all that is now or ever will be."
After 2400 years, the appearance of design is as powerful as ever. That is especially true of the living world. Advances in biology have revealed that world to be one staggering complexity.
For example, consider the cell. Even the simplest cells bristle with high-tech machinery. On the outside, their surfaces are studded with sensors, gates, pumps and identification markers. Some bacteria even sport rotary outboard motors that they use to navigate their environment.
Inside, cells are jam-packed with power plants, assembly lines, recycling units and more. Miniature monorails whisk materials from one part of the cell to another.
Such sophistication has led even the most hard-bitten atheists to remark on the apparent design in living organisms. The late Nobel laureate Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA's structure and an outspoken critic of religion, has nonetheless remarked, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved."
Clearly, Crick (and others like him) considers the appearance of design to be strictly an illusion, created by naturalistic evolution. Yet it's also clear that this impression is so compelling that an atheistic biologist must warn his colleagues against it.
In contrast, ID theorists contend that living organisms appear designed because they are designed. And unlike the design thinkers whom Darwin deposed, they've developed rigorous new concepts to test their idea.
In the past, detecting design was hampered by vague and subjective criteria, such as discerning an object's purpose. Moreover, design was entangled with natural theology--which seeks, in part, to infer God's character by studying nature rather than revelation. Natural theologians often painted such a rosy view of nature that they became an easy mark for Darwin when he proposed his theory of evolution. Where they saw a finely-balanced world attesting to a kind and just God, Darwin pointed to nature’s imperfections and brutishness.
Since the 1980s, however, developments in several fields have made it possible to rigorously distinguish between things that "just happen" and those that happen "on purpose." This has helped design theory emerge as a distinct enterprise, aimed at detecting intelligence rather than speculating about God's character.
Dubbed "intelligent design" to distinguish it from old-school thinking, this new view is detailed in The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press, 1998), a peer-reviewed work by mathematician and philosopher William Dembski.
In contrast to what is called creation science, which parallels Biblical theology, ID rests on two basic assumptions: namely, that intelligent agents exist and that their effects are empirically detectable.
Its chief tool is specified complexity. That's a mouthful, and the math behind it is forbidding, but the basic idea is simple: An object displays specified complexity when it has lots of parts (is complex) arranged in a recognizable, delimited pattern (is specified).
For example, the article you're now reading has thousands of characters, which could have been arranged in zillions of ways. Yet it fits a recognizable pattern: It's not just a jumble of letters (which is also complex), but a magazine article written in English. Any rational person would conclude that it was designed.
The effectiveness of such thinking is confirmed by massive experience. As Dembski points out, "In every instance where we find specified complexity, and where [its] history is known, it turns out that design actually is present."
Thus, if we could trace the creation of a book, our investigation would lead us to the author. You could say, then, that specified complexity is a signature of design.
To see how this applies to biology, consider the little consider the outboard motor that bacteria such as E. coli use to navigate their environment. This water-cooled contraption, called a flagellum, comes equipped with a reversible engine, drive shaft, U-joint and a long whip-like propeller. It hums along at a cool 17,000 rpm.
Decades of research indicate that its complexity is enormous. It takes about 50 genes to create a working flagellum. Each of those genes is as complex as a sentence with hundreds of letters.
Moreover, the pattern--a working flagellum--is highly specified. Deviate from that pattern, knock out a single gene, and our bug is dead in the water (or whatever).
Such highly specified complexity, which demands the presence of every part, indicates an intelligent origin. It's also defies any explanation, such as contemporary Darwinism, that relies on the stepwise accumulation of random genetic change.
In fact, if you want to run the numbers, as Dembski does in his book No Free Lunch, it boils down to the following: If every elementary particle in the observed universe (about 1080) were cranking out mutation events at the cosmic speed limit (about 1045 times per second) for a billion times the estimated age of the universe, they still could not produce the genes for a working flagellum.
And that's just one system within multiple layers of systems. Thus the flagellum is integrated into a sensory/guidance system that maneuvers the bacterium toward nutrients and away from noxious chemicals--a system so complex that computer simulation is required to understand it in its entirety. That system is meshed with other systems. And so on.
Of course, what's important here is not what we conclude about the flagellum or the cell, but how we study it. Design theorists don't derive their conclusions from revelation, but by looking for reliable, rigorously defined indicators of design and by ruling out alternative explanations, such as Darwinism.
Calling their work religious is just a cheap way to dodge the issues. The public--and our students--deserve better than that.
Mark Hartwig has a Ph.D. in educational psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara, specializing in statistics and research design.
No, he is a self-controlling God.
The presence of freewill establishes that another's will is not being forced upon us. This does not say another will doesn't exist, as that would mean we would have but the one choice. This means that not only do we have a will, but another will MUST exist for ours to be "free"
Therein lies the problem. The commandment that says that "thou shalt worship no other gods before me" indicates that there are indeed other gods. Some of them are even named in the bible. Which one is telling the truth? Are any of the stories about gods true? It is an interesting question, and it is in the realm of philosophy, not science.
My view is that if an infinite god exists then evil cannot exist. Everything must be precisely as the infinite god wishes it to be.
I've addressed this to almost everyone who has asked me such. Even some who don't.
God "having a creator" (even if it is Himself) is not a rational that we can venture to. Not saying one we shouldn't, but one we CANT.
Given that Time is a property of the Universe, and God created the Universe, God gave the Universe the Time. Thus "before" God does not exist in any way we could fathom. If there is no "before" there is no "creator"
Thus, God has always been. End of story.
----If a god created a musician then a god created him. If a god created a musician but did not have any control over what the musician would end up doing, then he is a limited god. I already discussed limited gods above.----
What if God wasn't within the realm of thinking as we perceive 'life', as in being 'created' by something. We are subject to creation, I believe that God doesn't exist in the way we look inwards within ourselves. Creation is an instrument created by God, that doesn't necessarily mean creation applies to God.
That negates the entire premise of science that you so desire to defend with atheism!
For evil to exist, God MUST exist, and vice-versa.
Think of it as "1" and "0"
Something and nothing.
You can't have "something" without "nothing" being an option. That's why the number 0 exists. It's why it's used as "off" in machine speak.
For there to be existance, there has to be something beyond existance.
Your view is flawed.
So that would mean that an infinite god could create a number which is both even and odd? Answer quickly!
And it brings us full circle to my ultimate point, which is that if god exists one cannot reach god via reason, but only through faith. Many here have faith, I don't.
Intelligent Design is an attempt to reason out god. To one with true faith, ID theory is unnecessary and meaningless.
"Yes, of course it is, because creating the option to engage in evil is evil."
Your arguments do not hold water.
By the same token our constitution would be evil because it permits gun ownership, and guns can be used in a bad way. In fact, we can be certain that someone is going to misuse a gun in the next few days. So do you think allowing gun ownership is evil?
God has created beings with the ability to make choices. Many choices people make are against God's will. He does not instantly judge these sins because He is patient and merciful. But He has promised to judge the world in righteousness.
You have a very simplistic approach to theology, but at least you have given the subject some consideration. What you are not accounting for is the concept of redemption.
----My view is that if an infinite god exists then evil cannot exist. Everything must be precisely as the infinite god wishes it to be.----
Evil acts do exist, because they are part of mankind and of our existence. Evil acts are there, and are not to be overlooked. We recognize them as what they are. If evil didn't exist, we wouldn't be talking about the subject at hand.
I disagree. Proponents of "intelligent design" always, always beg the question of religion.
For example:
In contrast to what is called creation science, which parallels Biblical theology, ID rests on two basic assumptions: namely, that intelligent agents exist and that their effects are empirically detectable.
The question begged is "what intelligence?" The obvious and immediate answer is the Creator. (Unless, of course, you're a Raelian.) "Intelligent design theorists" are creationists, and the sole purpose of "intelligent design" is to advance the idea that the Creator created life. Not that there is anything wrong with the idea. There's nothing bad about being a creationist. But it isn't scientific. "Intelligent design" is nothing but creationism dressed up in pseudo-scientific jargon.
Now, I sincerely believe there is nothing wrong with the idea of creation in a religious context. All too often, objections to "intelligent design" are characterized as hostility to religion. With a few exceptions, nothing could be further from the truth. The problem that I, and many others, have with "intelligent design" is that it is advanced as a scientific theory; particularly an equivalent and alternative theory to evolution. It is not a scientific theory. The sole purpose of "intelligent design" is to torpedo the scientific concept of evolution because some people believe that evolution contradicts their religious faith.
The purpose of science is not to answer philosophical and metaphysical questions, such as "is there a Creator" and "why do we exist." By its very definition the divine defies description and transcends measurement. The purpose of science, however, is to describe the physical world in concrete terms. Science is simply a tool. One does not demand ethics from a hammer or inclined plane. By dressing up religion as science, "intelligent design theorists" do a disservice to both science and religion.
Was that post directed at me by mistake? It sounds like you're making an arguement... but the post not only is not what you addressed, but agrees with yours as well.
Yes.
Fine. Now give me the number that is both even and odd.
tick
tick
tick
White smoke already?
I am not an infinite god, as one might readily discern from the sorry state of existence. :)
If I posted something towards you, it was prob a mistake. I don't recall posting an argument towards you. Which response are you talking about?
You responded to 164... but you wre quoting an earlier one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.