[karajorma]

EDIT:  ehhh not worth getting involved in this.  I'm going to go with Ses's bit on the last thread... these things always come down to "Does God exist?"?  Not worth getting into that. 

No it doesn't. It doesn't at all. Debates about creationism vs evolution may come down to whether God exists because that is an argument between faith and science. ID claims to be science however and supposedly goes out of its way to avoid mentioning God. That means that we're dealing with a science vs science debate and the sole criterion that becomes important there is the quality of the science involved. And the quality of science involved in ID is very poor indeed.
  I could prove that ID is a load of crap even if God was sitting next to me with a T-shirt saying "I exist" on it because the existance of God is completely irrelevent to the subject at hand.

[Bobboau]

well not realy, God is a requierment of ID, it is one of the requierments of it, like natural selection or random mutation is to evolution, if you could prove that random mutations do not occur or that natural selection doesn't happen then evolution would be invalidated, in a similar vein God (or some equivelent) is needed for ID, they must prove the exsistence of God in a scientificaly verifyable and reproduceable way in order for there 'theory' to work, if they cannot do this then ID is incapable of competeing with evolution.

[karajorma]

actually, 99% of Intelligent Design advocates are Christians in some way shape or form, right?  In that, they believe in a creator, and thus in intelligent design too.

I find it funny that you're failing to see the distinction between ID and the concept that God created the universe and man. They are actually two very different concepts. The fact that you have confused them pretty much proves what I was saying that you don't actually understand what ID is.

Creationism is the faith based belief that God created the universe and mankind.

ID was an attempt to create a scientific theory that explained the appearance of mankind. ID attempted to make sure that there were gaps in the theory that could only be explained by an intelligent creator. The idea behind ID was to enable the proponents of the theory to challenge evolution on a scientific basis rather than the faith vs science basis that creationism vs evolution debates have to use.
 If you're admitting that ID isn't scientific then you're wasting your time trying to argue in its favour. The whole raison d'etre for ID was to exist as a scientific theory. If you don't believe it is a scientific theory you should dump it and go back to arguing creationism.

[WMCoolmon]

actually, 99% of Intelligent Design advocates are Christians in some way shape or form, right?  In that, they believe in a creator, and thus in intelligent design too.

that said, it would be hard to argue one way or the other, without first establishing whether God exists or not, in a "Does God Exist" type thread

Only if the existence of God directly proves ID, and is the only way to prove ID.

However, I'm not seeing the ability to prove or disprove anything that hasn't been defined...

[karajorma]

well not realy, God is a requierment of ID, it is one of the requierments of it, like natural selection or random mutation is to evolution, if you could prove that random mutations do not occur or that natural selection doesn't happen then evolution would be invalidated, in a similar vein God (or some equivelent) is needed for ID, they must prove the exsistence of God in a scientificaly verifyable and reproduceable way in order for there 'theory' to work, if they cannot do this then ID is incapable of competeing with evolution.

I think you're missing my point Bob. Yes complete disproof of God (or any other kind of supernatural creator) would be one way to take down ID but you don't need to do that.

ID states that there are some things evolution can't explain therefore God must have done them. Why concentrate on the last half of the sentence? You can prove ID is rubbish by disproving the first half of that sentence too. If you can prove that there is no scientific evidence for things evolution can't explain then the rest of the sentence becomes irrelevent.

ID tries to pass itself off as a completely scientific theory (one which lets faith in by the back door admittedly). That means you can prove ID completely wrong on scientific grounds.

That's probably why the Catholic church won't touch ID with a 10' bargepole. They've taken the much more sensible approach of saying that evolution is correct but that faith says that God exists and was in some nebulous way responsible for creating mankind. That instantly means that any argument between atheists and catholics becomes about why mankind exists (something which is a matter of philosophy) rather than how it exists (something provable by scientific theory).

[WMCoolmon]

That's probably why the Catholic church won't touch ID with a 10' bargepole. They've taken the much more sensible approach of saying that evolution is correct but that faith says that God exists and was in some nebulous way responsible for creating mankind. That instantly means that any argument between atheists and catholics becomes about why mankind exists (something which is a matter of philosophy) rather than how it exists (something provable by scientific theory).

Of course, even within the scope of Evolution it's possible to argue a Creator God. If you felt up to it, you could probably argue that it's possible that God steered those events which Science deems 'possible but not certain to happen' - ie even though there's proof that they happened a certain way, it's by no means certain that they would always happen that way in a nearly-identical situation. One of those butterfly-flapping-its-wings things. (That sounds catchy)

[karajorma]

Exactly. God could easily steer evolution without having to any of the things ID says he had to. I've always found it amusing that ID's proponents feel that God needs to interfere on such a large level in order to do what he wants. Haven't they got faith in their own deity do do incredibly complicated things with absolutely undetectable changes?
 Why would an omniscient diety need to do things like that. He can see every single thing that will happen from start of the universe until free will comes along (which he can see, not see or not choose to see depending on who you talk to). Why not say God just created universes until he came across one He liked and which would eventually evolve a species He could do whatever His ineffable plan is.

[Stealth]

I find it funny that you're failing to see the distinction between ID and the concept that God created the universe and man. They are actually two very different concepts. The fact that you have confused them pretty much proves what I was saying that you don't actually understand what ID is.

Creationism is the faith based belief that God created the universe and mankind.

ID was an attempt to create a scientific theory that explained the appearance of mankind. ID attempted to make sure that there were gaps in the theory that could only be explained by an intelligent creator. The idea behind ID was to enable the proponents of the theory to challenge evolution on a scientific basis rather than the faith vs science basis that creationism vs evolution debates have to use.
 If you're admitting that ID isn't scientific then you're wasting your time trying to argue in its favour. The whole raison d'etre for ID was to exist as a scientific theory. If you don't believe it is a scientific theory you should dump it and go back to arguing creationism.

i find it funny that you've got this idea in your head that you have to be extremely intelligent to understand the concept of ID.  don't kid yourself, you're not that smart.  read what you said:

ID attempted to make sure that there were gaps in the theory that could only be explained by an intelligent creator.

.
God creating everything == Intelligent Creator (AS YOU SAID ABOVE) == falls under "Intelligent Design"...
would you not agree? i kind of thought that was a given... didn't think anyone (even you) would try arguing that.

[Stealth]

ID isn't science. It is obviously not science. How much more clearly do you want us to put it?

And your point is very blunt, and is, in the end, utterly pointless.

here kid, let me explain it to you in more detail... maybe i can get you to see the similarities.

1) Judge rules homosexual marriages cannot take place - in that homosexual couples can not get married.
2) Judge rules ID cannot be taught in schools - in that ID can not be taught in schools

they're both rulings, now don't try to be smart and say "one's a science and one's not"... that's stupid.  the point here, is you agreed with one verdict, but you were completely opposed to another.  so why is it such a big deal when a judge rules something?  they ruled against homosexual marriage, yet it meant absolutely nothing to you, right?  i don't know if i can put it any clearer, so if you don't get it now, then i'm sorry :-/

[ionia23]

1) Judge rules homosexual marriages cannot take place - in that homosexual couples can not get married.
2) Judge rules ID cannot be taught in schools - in that ID can not be taught in schools

Homosexual marriage is not the subject at hand here.  I'm sure there's other threads on THAT whole thing.

Intelligent Design cannot be taught in SCIENCE CLASSES because there's nothing scientific about it.  Now, if someone wants to pursue trying to find the 'creator' through scientific investigation, be my guest.

Now, if they are saying that ID cannot be taught in a public school at all, that makes sense as well.  Much as I would like to see a class where the different creation theories of different religions could be discussed in an academic forum, it's simply impractical and, more to the point, I am wise enough to mistrust the motives of Christians working in groups (despite being one myself).  Whether you 'believe' or not, you cannot deny what a powerful driving force theology was behind the development of our various world cultures now.  Sometimes to our great shame.

[Stealth]

now i'm sorry, i don't have time for this right now

i'm going sailing.  be back in 7 or 8 hours.

[karajorma]

i find it funny that you've got this idea in your head that you have to be extremely intelligent to understand the concept of ID.  don't kid yourself, you're not that smart.  read what you said:

Any more of that and I'm reporting your post. There is no need to get insulting. I haven't said anything about your intelligence nor belittled you in any way. Nor have I said anything about the intelligence level required to understand ID. I have simply said that you don't actually understand what ID is. The fact that I have to explain to you the difference between ID and creationism should prove that I was not insulting you by saying that. You don't understand what ID is plain and simple.

God creating everything == Intelligent Creator (AS YOU SAID ABOVE) == falls under "Intelligent Design"...
would you not agree? i kind of thought that was a given... didn't think anyone (even you) would try arguing that.

Nope. You are wrong. The theory of Intelligent Design that was rejected in the court case above is not what you claim it was. What you're talking about is creationism. You're talking about intelligent design with small letters not The Theory of Intelligent Design with capitals. If there is a God intelligent design is true but Intelligent Design isn't. It's a fundemental difference and not one that most of the proponents of ID actually understand. They believe that ID is simply the new name for creationism.

Creationism is the theory that God created the universe and mankind. The theory of Intelligent Design doesn't actually mention God at all. What it strives to do is explain how there are holes in evolutionary theory that could only be explained by some intelligence directing the course of evolution (I.e an intelligent designer). ID doesn't actually try to claim who or what the designer is. The purpose of the theory is simply to claim that there must be one. That designer could be God, Budda, aliens or flying spagetti monster.

 The point of this is to have an argument with the scientific establishment on scientific grounds without bringing faith into the mix and ending up with the kind of "prove God exists" argument you said was so pointless earlier. Proponents of ID have gone out of their way on many occasions to claim that ID is science not faith.

 The problem with ID is that the science involved is
a) fundementally flawed
b) well above school childrens level anyway

The attempt by the religious right to push ID onto school kids is what led to the court case because there is no reason why it should be taught to children at that age except so that they could use is to gain acceptance for their particular form of creationism by saying that it fit the supposed holes in evolution left by ID. ID lost because it was obviously being used for this purpose.

So I hope you see what ID is now. It isn't simply the belief in an intelligent designer. It's the belief in a specific set of flaws in evolutionary theory. The fact that you couldn't name one of those supposed flaws even though I repeatedly pressed you to explain what they were is what led me to the conclusion that you don't understand what ID is. Nothing more, nothing less and certainly not any insinuations about your intellect.

That's why I told you to go back to arguing creationism instead. It's obvious that you at least understand that one. Arguing for a theory you don't understand is counter-productive and pointless.

[MrBig101]

Could someone please explain to me exactly what Intelligent Design is?  I couldn't make it out in all the chaos.

[karajorma]

Hopefully the post I just made cleared it up for you.

[MrBig101]

So, basically it's sort of a kind of a mix of Creationism and Evolution, to a point?

[aldo_14]

actually i agree that ID isn't a scientific theory.

do we only teach our kids scientific theories in school? cause i remember being taught a lot more than that in school

This was not about schools only teaching scientific theories, this was about not teaching religion in science class.  ID - creationism - is part of religious education.  Evolution is part of science and biology.  Until Id can be qualified as a scientific theory, it has no place being described, let alone taught, as one.

ID isn't science. It is obviously not science. How much more clearly do you want us to put it?

And your point is very blunt, and is, in the end, utterly pointless.

here kid, let me explain it to you in more detail... maybe i can get you to see the similarities.

1) Judge rules homosexual marriages cannot take place - in that homosexual couples can not get married.
2) Judge rules ID cannot be taught in schools - in that ID can not be taught in schools

they're both rulings, now don't try to be smart and say "one's a science and one's not"... that's stupid. the point here, is you agreed with one verdict, but you were completely opposed to another. so why is it such a big deal when a judge rules something? they ruled against homosexual marriage, yet it meant absolutely nothing to you, right? i don't know if i can put it any clearer, so if you don't get it now, then i'm sorry :-/

So this means you agree it's wrong to teach Id as a science, then?

Now, you're making a hash of a comparison here.

Firstly, the issue of ID was whether or not it is science or religion.  It's a very clear, linear definition of what science is; the key issue in this trial would more be IMO whether or not ID was religious (because it takes the pretence of not being that to try and get round the constitutional ban upon teaching religion in the way the fundamentalists want).

Now, the issue of homosexual marriage is on whether the constitution forbids it, whether marriage is defined as a purely male-female relationship.  In that case it becomes a lot less definable in fact; it's an attempt to reintrepet a centuries old document to modern society.  In any case, a number of courts have ruled banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional; I believe in Massachussets and California (per the state constitution). 

And in any case, these are different judges, different decisions.  You honestly think that one good decision means we stop disagreeing with bad ones?  That's just a cynical, cheap attempt to attack people by trying to set them up as hypocrites.  Guess what - we don't hold our opininion because of what some judge does or not does say.  We hold them because we look at the facts, and the evidence, and so on.  The reason we're hailing this verdict is because it represents a rare victory for common sense and rationality within a United States where it seems that the theocratic* elements are in control at the highest levels of governments, where science is attacked for offering a a different view which cannot be controlled by the fundamentalist christian groups who have come up with concepts like ID to trojan-horse their agenda.

*and it is theocracy to punt ideas like ID as science.

[karajorma]

So, basically it's sort of a kind of a mix of Creationism and Evolution, to a point?

Basically it was a theory invented by creationists just for the purpose of trying to prove evolution wrong. As such it tries to point out perceived flaws in evolution.

Most explainations I've seen are very careful to avoid ever saying that evolution is right about anything. They simply try to point out where it is wrong. That is yet another reason why isn't a real scientific theory. It doesn't replace evolution with anything. It simply tries to tear it down.

It must also be pointed out that while all the arguments ID proposes are pretty badly flawed scientifically they are at least better than that crap about the 2nd law of thermodynamics that gets trotted out all the time

[Janos]

Basically it was a theory invented by creationists just for the purpose of trying to prove evolution wrong. As such it tries to point out perceived flaws in evolution.

Most explainations I've seen are very careful to avoid ever saying that evolution is right about anything. They simply try to point out where it is wrong. That is yet another reason why isn't a real scientific theory. It doesn't replace evolution with anything. It simply tries to tear it down.

It must also be pointed out that while all the arguments ID proposes are pretty badly flawed scientifically they are at least better than that crap about the 2nd law of thermodynamics that gets trotted out all the time

The funny thing is that all the tearing and shouting of IDers hasn't even resulted in reviewing older theories - if it had any scientific base then something like this propably would have happened already. Instead most of their talking points, like blood clotting, got much more attention and were proven to be results of evolution (well duhhh, but anyways). If ID had even somekind of truth inside thousands of layers of pure, crystallized bull****, they propably had found it already (prolly by accident). So far they hadn't.

Some IDers also search for "transitional morphs". Like bat with half of the wings and so on (and also implied significant negative fitness factor). This is creationism in classical sense and finding out that such morphs would actually disprove evolution as we know it, but THAT AINT GONNA KEEP ME DOWN

[WMCoolmon]

So, basically it's sort of a kind of a mix of Creationism and Evolution, to a point?

ID is essentially a "theory" that states that there are aspects of life that are either too complex, or impossible, to have evolved simply by chance and therefore that some outside, intelligent, force must have played a part in it. As Kara said, this may be _any_ intellgent force, although the Christian God is definitely used as the prime suspect when it's being discussed because it is a theory put forth mostly by hardline Christians.

----------(This part is a bit more biased)

The problem with ID as a theory is that it is not a conclusion drawn from research. Rather than using the "bottom-up" approach of most scientific theories, ID attempts to come up with evidence for a hypothesis rather than come up with a hypothesis from evidence. It is also essentially impossible to prove or disprove, because of the possibility that this intelligent designer has the ability to be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipowerful.

If this reasoning were used universally in science, you would have to come up with alternate theories for the theory of gravity, uncertainty principle of quantum physics, and so on, to explain anything unexplainable with the current theory by adding a coexisting "theory" that maybe the observed phoenomena are caused by an outside intelligence that chooses not to reveal itself. Although it's certainly a possibility, the lack of proof disqualifies this idea from taking part in the theory, as science deals with things that can be observed and tested.

(Personally, I think it'd be funny if aliens showed up with irrefutable evidence that they had caused humanity's existence...proving ID right but totally wrecking the meaning behind it in the first place. But that's just me.)

[Kamikaze]

So, basically it's sort of a kind of a mix of Creationism and Evolution, to a point?

Here's a definition from Of Pandas and People (the Wikipedia article is worth reading, btw), which is an ID textbook:

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.