The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Skeptic Online ^ | May 2006 | David Brin

[freedumb2003]

It is not science or scientific in and of itself any more than tentative suggestions to the contrary, but it is a principle under which science may comfortably take place.

IOW, philosophy.

[narby]

They don't care nor do they think it is a real issue.

Creationists don't care about actually discovering anything via science. ID gives them the license they feel they need to ignore biological facts that disagree with the object of their worship, the Bible. They don't worship God or care about studying His creation. If they did, they would respect evolution as a great achievement of God, as Catholics have done. Instead, they worship a book.

[manwiththehands]

“Legitimate competitors” to ID:

1. Guided Evolution = religion
2. Intelligent Design of Intelligent Designers (IDOID) = religion
3. Evolution of Intelligent Designers = incoherent babbling and backwards thinking with no evidence.
4. Cycles of Creation = religion
5. Panspermia = no evidence

The best of Mr. Brin's "competitors" is The “Flying Spaghetti Monster.”

He wants to slam religion but all he talks about are lunatic ideas and religion.

Nice try, Mr. Brin. I'll give you a "C" for effort.

[tortoise]

I think an examination of biological complexity declares a creator.

You are misunderstanding "complexity". Complexity is a rigorous concept with counter-intuitive properties that is broadly used in many areas of mathematics and engineering. In this case, your intuition has failed you as one can demonstrate trivially in the math that your assertion is defective.

Succinctly, you have yet to demonstrate that the asserted complexity is real or remarkable. Your intuition of its obviousness is incorrect; there is no relation between apparent complexity and true mathematical complexity, and proving true complexity from apparent complexity is very difficult (understatement of the year).

[Fester Chugabrew]

IOW, philosophy.

Yes. Which in turn also applies to the wider implications and assumptions of Darwinists.

[Question_Assumptions]

OK. Why not tell students about all of those other possibilities?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Intelligent Design as stated by its major proponents is a subject only examining biology . . .

While the major proponents of ID tend to suggest it in terms of biology their arguments apply equally well in any case where the objects of science are intelligible; where organized matter performs specific functions. One certainly does not need a biblical text to see the evidence. One does, however, need a philosophy, or principle, by which to interpret it.

[tortoise]

Why not tell students about all of those other possibilities?

Because there are an infinite number.

Fortunately, Occam's Razor provides a mathematically strong method for selecting/ordering hypotheses. Unfortunately, if you popped the top three hypotheses off Occam's stack, none of them would be ID.

[freedumb2003]

Which in turn also applies to the wider implications and assumptions of Darwinists.

Prove this assertion. There is a complete and comprehensive structure to support TToE. Just because it is too complicated for you to understand doesn't lessen it as solid science.

Or will you run away like you always do when challenged?

[freedumb2003]

OK. Why not tell students about all of those other possibilities?

There are thousands and thousands of creation myths. They can all be dealt with in the proper forum: theology, mythology, philosophy.

Saying in a science class, "Oh, and there are a bunch of myths that contravene the science I just taught you" doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense and is counterproductive.

[Sundog]

Thank you for saving me the time to look this up and post it myself.

(I wonder how reincarnated pirates fit into the theology?...)

[SteveMcKing]

5. Panspermia = no evidence

I would argue that earth is a sample of 1, and there are two interpretations of this:

a) N=1 is not an experiment; reject the sample.
b) Use the data you have, however rotten. Then 100% of earth-like planets are... like the earth. Hence, most or all earth-like planets shall be like us too.

Is there a name given to alien intervention -- the idea that humans were introduced here for observation or long-term harvesting?

[taxesareforever]

Let's just teach the Bible as Science.

Did I say that? NO! I don't want the Bible taught in school and I also don't want Darwinism taught. Get it? Hope so.

[freedumb2003]

don't want the Bible taught in school and I also don't want Darwinism taught.

So you want no science taught?

[taxesareforever]

To what "agenda", do you refer

Teaching a lie as truth.

[freedumb2003]

the idea that humans were introduced here for observation or long-term harvesting?

X-fileia.

[freedumb2003]

Teaching a lie as truth.

What lie would this be?

[Question_Assumptions]

Saying in a science class, "Oh, and there are a bunch of myths that contravene the science I just taught you" doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense and is counterproductive.

It makes more sense to fight a never-ending battle against teaching evolution with religious people because teaching evolution without that disclaimer is seen as anti-religious? It's counter-productive toward want end?

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

SFS: "I'm willing to admit that their are elements of both history and faith in my support for Biblical Creationism."

Evolutionist: Please explain the historical elements.

SFS: "If only the Darwinian secularists were as honest."

Evolutionist: What of those who accept the theory of evolution who are not "secularists"? How are people who accept the theory of evolution not honest? Please be specific.

==========================================================================

1) Historical elements? It's not a new concept. Why should I dance to amuse you?

2) Evolutionists not honest? You prove my point, or at least your pseudo-intellectual "questioning" on this thread does.

It's much easier to issue pejorative questions and demand answers than to define a substantive argument. Go play with someone else.

SFS

[Dimensio]

While the major proponents of ID tend to suggest it in terms of biology their arguments apply equally well in any case where the objects of science are intelligible; where organized matter performs specific functions.

Your statement is not accurate. The arguments used for Intelligent Design in a biological context state the existence of specific biological mechanisms that proponents claim could not have come about through natural selection. Because natural selection does not universally apply to matter in general, however, a paralell argument cannot be drawn to "organized matter performing specific functions". As such, you will need to construct a different basis for what you call "Intelligent Design" than what proponents of the "Intelligent Design" of biology use.