What is Intelligent Design Theory?

[OckhamsRazor]

What is the definition of ID?

Intelligent Design Theory (Here after refered to as ID) is a contraversial theory that applies to the study of origins of life and species. It's central thesis is that the design of a phenomenon by an intelligence is detectable by means of observation and statistics. In other words ID hopes to find a means by which one can determine wether a phenomenon is the product of a deliberate action by an intelligence, a phenomenon that occurs due to a high enough number of unknown variables as to give the appearance of randomness (accident), or that it is the result of a consistently repeating chain of events that is discernable from that which appears to be an accident. A common misunderstanding about ID is that it invokes a supernatural explanation as a part of it's central thesis. ID only seeks to find the signature of design on a given phenomenon. The ultimate cause of the design is not in site. That is left up for the individual to decide. For instance; a theory called Directed Panspermia could be appealed to. Directed Panspermia is the idea that aliens seeded life on this planet. I would add one thing further on this point. Do not confuse the individual extrapolation of ID theorists as to who the designer is with the empirical demonstration of design that there work hopes to show. In other words don't confuse his or her opinion with his or her science. In this string I want to discuss a number of issues.
The definition of ID

A digest of the back round of ID (How it started)

The methods of ID

The purpose of this post is the establish the definition of ID.

[Roy]

What is the definition of ID?

Creationism with the religious aspects deliberately obscured in an attempt to avoid a prohibition on teaching it in US schools.

Roy

[Jugulum]

Creationism with the religious aspects deliberately obscured in an attempt to avoid a prohibition on teaching it in US schools.

And yet I'm a YEC, but I don't embrace ID.

[Roy]

And yet I'm a YEC, but I don't embrace ID.

That's because you're an honest YEC

Roy

[FreezBee]

What is the definition of ID?
Intelligent Design Theory (Here after refered to as ID) is a contraversial theory that applies to the study of origins of life and species. It's central thesis is that the design of a phenomenon by an intelligence is detectable by means of observation and statistics. In other words ID hopes to find a means by which one can determine wether a phenomenon is the product of a deliberate action by an intelligence, a phenomenon that occurs due to a high enough number of unknown variables as to give the appearance of randomness (accident), or that it is the result of a consistently repeating chain of events that is discernable from that which appears to be an accident. A common misunderstanding about ID is that it invokes a supernatural explanation as a part of it's central thesis.[font=Arial Black][color=red] ID only seeks to find the signature of design on a given phenomenon. The ultimate cause of the design is not in site.

Ok, OckhamsRazor, We should at least appreciate that you try. It's just that we have all read this more times before than we want to think anout.

This detecting design as design disregarding the designer is a fine and noble quest just as the quest for the holy grail; it's just that irreducible complexity, specified complexity, redundant complexity and all the other varieties of complexity appear to be vowen by the same stuff as the emperor's new clothes.

Yes, I'm a grumpy old man, but seeing that crackpots like ReMine, Dembski and Gitt can counts as earth-shaking geniuses would make YOU a grumpy old man as well, if you knew enough to know that what these guys know is more about how to promote yourself than about, what they are writing about.

I might be wrong; but I have been cursed with the inability to be very wrong So, there's really not much choice.


- FreezsBee

[Minnesota]

A common misunderstanding about ID is that it invokes a supernatural explanation as a part of it's central thesis.

Really, Well then you might want to tell those who developed and champion it.

Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools (P. Johnson Johnson, Phillip. 2003. American Family Radio, Jan. 10, 2003).


"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of
us being created in the image of a benevolent
God.”
- William Dembski quoted, Science Test, Church & State
Magazine, July / August 2000.


"We are taking an intuition most people have [the
belief in God] and making it a scientific and
academic enterprise. We are removing the most
important cultural roadblock to accepting the role
of God as creator."
- Phillip Johnson quoted, Enlisting Science to Find the
Fingerprints of a Creator, The LA Times, 3/25/2001.


“The world is a mirror representing the divine
life…Intelligent design readily embraces the
sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed,
intelligent design is just the Logos theology of
John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information
theory.”
- William A.Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August
1999.


"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to
clear obstacles that prevent people from coming
to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if
there’s anything that I think has blocked the
growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit
and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus
Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It’s
important that we understand the world. God has
created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."
William Dembski quoted, Benen, Steve, “The Discovery

Governing Goals announced in the CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE's "Wedge Strategy

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
source


Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Decision of the Court
[December 31, 2005]

"Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich))."

[FreezBee]

And yet I'm a YEC, but I don't embrace ID.

Hello Jugulum

Long time, no see. Please don't ever leave as alone with Jorge again, please


- FreezBee

[Barry Desborough]

What is the definition of ID?

From it's actual content, ID appears to be an attempt to challenge the generally accepted source of design, evolution by the natural selection of variation. Anything at all could in principle be the product of design by other means, which makes it extremely difficult to ascribe those other means to its design, unless there is other suplementary information which throws light on the question (as in the case, for example, of a human-designed artefact). In the absence of that other information, and in the absence of indications of the inadequacy of natural design to provide an account, Ockham's razor dictates that natural design is the preferred conclusion.

So my definition is 'a would-be rival to evolution'.

[Jugulum]

That's because you're an honest YEC

Roy

Flattery aside, my point is that creationism does not imply any validity in ID arguments, nor do ID arguments imply the validity of creationism. You can quote creationist strategists all you want; ID arguments stand or fall independent of creationism. If it really is possible to detect design using ID analysis, it doesn't matter what Phillip Johnson says about the ID & the reality of God. If it's not, it matters even less.

[Jugulum]

Hello Jugulum

Yo.

Long time, no see. Please don't ever leave as alone with Jorge again, please

Aw, you just say that because I'm better-looking than he is.

[Jorge]

And yet I'm a YEC, but I don't embrace ID.

Concisely, what about ID don't you embrace? Parts or the whole of it?

Jorge

[Jorge]

That's because you're an honest YEC

Roy

Now wait a cotton' pickin' minute! It has been implied repeatedly that there can be no such thing as an "honest" YEC since to be a YEC means that the "clear evidences" for an OE must be avoided and that's dishonest.

Have things changed since the last time I looked?

Jorge

[Jugulum]

Concisely, what about ID don't you embrace? Parts or the whole of it?

Jorge

Ultra-concise: I believe that the universe is intelligently designed. I'm not convinced that the arguments of the ID movement are valid detection methods. (I'm not even sure there are any valid methods for detecting design in biology, except for finding something like "Bioengineered by the Dharma Initiative" encoded in DNA.) But I don't actively disbelieve, since I haven't read or studied any of Dembski, Behe, et al.'s books or technical papers.

Edited to add: My exposure to ID has mainly been AiG articles, a bit of Dembski's blog, the ARN forum, and TheologyWeb forums (including just about every thread on the topic from the last 2 years.) That level of study has not left me particularly confident that the ID arguments will turn out to be valid. I do see some potential, but I also see what may be fatal flaws. I can't be more committed either way without more study.

[Jugulum]

Now wait a cotton' pickin' minute! It has been implied repeatedly that there can be no such thing as an "honest" YEC since to be a YEC means that the "clear evidences" for an OE must be avoided and that's dishonest.

Have things changed since the last time I looked?

Jorge

I anticipate an answer of "Kurt Wise".

[NeilUnreal]

Kurt Wise



-Neil