[_ Old Earth _] Questions about ID

[Geth]

Hi there,

I've got some problems understanding the concept of Intelligent Design. I hope you can enlighten me.
And please stay within ID, no creationism, no religion, no bible quotes please. And I don't account bashing on evolution as an answer to these questions.

1. If theres a designer, is he still present and changing things in the universe or did he form everything as we know it today and then disappeared?

2. How old is the universe and therefor the earth based on information given by ID?

I hope you can clear things up for me about ID.

PS: If there are flaws in my grammer or spelling please excuse me. Since I'm from Germany I'm not a native english speaker.

 

[Deep Thought]

It's impossible to stay within ID without including creationism and religion as that's what ID is.

1. Religious people will give you many different answers to this question. As it is in the theological realm, then you can never have a definitive answer.

2. Using ID gives you no answers to the age of the universe, but a lot of IDers support an old earth/universe and certainly not the 6000 year old earth/universe.

 

[Geth]

I know that Deep Thought, but since some individuals in this forum inscist that ID is science based and it has no connection to religion, it should be possible to give me answers without falling back into creationism or religion.

I just want to know the foundations ID is based on. Cause you know that saying "Evolution is wrong" isn't a foundation for a scientific theory.

Oh and regarding the age of the earth. The IDers are constantly stating everything has been created by and intelligent designer. So ID must also cover the age of the earth.
You know like "Atheist Darwinists" must constantly illustrate how abiogenesis the big bang could have taken place : .

Greetings
Geth

 

[Snidey]

The foundation it is based on IS creationism. When the term creationism failed in the courts in the 80s the movement needed to redefine it. The Dover trial further proved that at times ID proponents literally went into the same texts they had previously offered and replaced "creationism" with "intelligent design." The only difference is that it's slightly more vague of a term.

 

[Snidey]

The foundation it is based on IS creationism. When the term creationism failed in the courts in the 80s the movement needed to redefine it. The Dover trial further proved that at times ID proponents literally went into the same texts they had previously offered and replaced "creationism" with "intelligent design." The only difference is that it's slightly more vague of a term.

 

[DavidLee]

Hi there,

Hi! [waves hand enthusiastically]

I've got some problems understanding the concept of Intelligent Design. I hope you can enlighten me.

We'll do our best to meet you on your own ground (so to speak).

And please stay within ID, no creationism, no religion, no bible quotes please. And I don't account bashing on evolution as an answer to these questions.

Of course. Why else would you come to a Christian forum looking for answers.

1. If theres a designer, is he still present and changing things in the universe or did he form everything as we know it today and then disappeared?

Still present, but it does not look like things are changing to me. I would have to say everything was formed at one time, but the designer is still around, watching.

2. How old is the universe and therefor the earth based on information given by ID?

The designer has not shared that information with any of us.

I hope you can clear things up for me about ID.

Unlikely. I think you know more than you let on.

In all seriousness, one cannot separate "Intelligent Design" from a belief in a designer.
Our viewpoints are different. Nothing either of us say will change the mind of the other. Those who are undecided don't care enough about the issue to engage in the discussion. Those who are bold enough to ask a serious question of the proponents of evolution about something that makes no sense are dismissed as uneducated or unsophisticated.

Let me ask you a question.
Why do you care what people think?

 

[Barbarian]

So ask about something that makes no sense in evolution. Might be a misunderstanding.

 

[freeway]

First off welcome to the quagmire Geht.. lots of nice people here, on both sides of the argument..

ID, without God, bible or Creation... OK lets put you to the test...

Say you have been on a desert Island for 10 yrs, you have seen no one, you know every inch of the Island, day in and day out you walk the beach and island searching for food, 10 yrs have gone by and not one single sign of intelligent life abounds.. On one such day you are walking the south side of the island after a horrible night storm, lighting, thunder, very heavy rains, giant waves crashing on the beach.. well while walking you see in the sand 20 or so 6 inch wide shells arranged to form a perfect arrow with the letter N also in shell of same size and number. These shells where not there before, you believe or where they..because you know this island.. you take out your compass and it points north, now the question? do just assume the ocean had done this, or do you think ID was involued and you go looking on the north side to see if they are still there?

To me that is ID, looking at the evidence that go beyond mere chance and attributing it to ID..
8-) 8-)

 

[Geth]

First off welcome to the quagmire Geht.. lots of nice people here, on both sides of the argument..

ID, without God, bible or Creation... OK lets put you to the test...

Say you have been on a desert Island for 10 yrs, you have seen no one, you know every inch of the Island, day in and day out you walk the beach and island searching for food, 10 yrs have gone by and not one single sign of intelligent life abounds.. On one such day you are walking the south side of the island after a horrible night storm, lighting, thunder, very heavy rains, giant waves crashing on the beach.. well while walking you see in the sand 20 or so 6 inch wide shells arranged to form a perfect arrow with the letter N also in shell of same size and number. These shells where not there before, you believe or where they..because you know this island.. you take out your compass and it points north, now the question? do just assume the ocean had done this, or do you think ID was involued and you go looking on the north side to see if they are still there?

To me that is ID, looking at the evidence that go beyond mere chance and attributing it to ID..
8-) 8-)

Well that since I would have no better explanation I would go with ID. Thats what's the scientific process is about: Using the theory best matching the given circumstances. And since I'm isolated on an island without further knowledge of my surroundings I would pick ID.
But this isn't the case for Evolution or the theory of the origin of the universe. We have some pretty decent theorys of how we all got here, all backed up with large amonuts of data. But I have yet to see scientific evidence for ID (stating evolution has it's own flaws and gaps is no evidence).

But even if evolution would be proven wrong and ID would be proven right, it wouldn't be an evidence for a god (which god by the way ;-) ). It could even be an evidence against the biblical god. Because since there are some pretty big flaws in our given design (i.e. Appendix, blind spot, genetical deceases), the designer is fallible. And isnt the bible based on the infallibility of god.

Why do you care what people think?

I care what people think on the same cause you care about our souls. Because I care about humanity itself.
And for that I find it hard to take, that ID is pushed into schools. Because ID would be putting an end to the scientific process. No need to investigate further into scientific fields because "hey - it was designed that way - stop asking".
Our curiosity is one of the best features of mankind, since it's helping humanity to develope and break it's own boundaries.


Greetings
Geth

 

[freeway]

Geth said:
But even if evolution would be proven wrong and ID would be proven right, it wouldn't be an evidence for a god (which god by the way ;-) ). It could even be an evidence against the biblical god. Because since there are some pretty big flaws in our given design (i.e. Appendix, blind spot, genetical deceases), the designer is fallible. And isnt the bible based on the infallibility of god.

But if as you say evolution is proven wrong, then the question begs, where did we or they the IDers come from... you ruled out evolution, then that means it has to be a "god" as you said ... I say why not "God"...
the flaws.. come from the fall of man... man was at first made, created perfect.. you opened the can of worms, not me
its late goin to bed... 8-) 8-)

freeway01

 

[Deep Thought]

First off welcome to the quagmire Geht.. lots of nice people here, on both sides of the argument..

ID, without God, bible or Creation... OK lets put you to the test...

Say you have been on a desert Island for 10 yrs, you have seen no one, you know every inch of the Island, day in and day out you walk the beach and island searching for food, 10 yrs have gone by and not one single sign of intelligent life abounds.. On one such day you are walking the south side of the island after a horrible night storm, lighting, thunder, very heavy rains, giant waves crashing on the beach.. well while walking you see in the sand 20 or so 6 inch wide shells arranged to form a perfect arrow with the letter N also in shell of same size and number. These shells where not there before, you believe or where they..because you know this island.. you take out your compass and it points north, now the question? do just assume the ocean had done this, or do you think ID was involued and you go looking on the north side to see if they are still there?

To me that is ID, looking at the evidence that go beyond mere chance and attributing it to ID..
8-) 8-)

Not ID at all. It was simply a trained seal whose purpose is to survey small desert islands and arrange shells on beaches in the shape of an arrow.

 

[Barbarian]

Say you have been on a desert Island for 10 yrs, you have seen no one, you know every inch of the Island, day in and day out you walk the beach and island searching for food, 10 yrs have gone by and not one single sign of intelligent life abounds.. On one such day you are walking the south side of the island after a horrible night storm, lighting, thunder, very heavy rains, giant waves crashing on the beach.. well while walking you see in the sand 20 or so 6 inch wide shells arranged to form a perfect arrow with the letter N also in shell of same size and number. These shells where not there before, you believe or where they..because you know this island.. you take out your compass and it points north, now the question? do just assume the ocean had done this, or do you think ID was involued and you go looking on the north side to see if they are still there?

To me that is ID, looking at the evidence that go beyond mere chance and attributing it to ID..

Seems reasonable. But we never see this kind of thing in nature, unless some person has done it.

We see sorting going on in natural processes, and fitness increasing in populations of organisms, but nothing like this. So we reasonably conclude the former is natural, and the latter is designed.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi there,

I've got some problems understanding the concept of Intelligent Design. I hope you can enlighten me.
And please stay within ID, no creationism, no religion, no bible quotes please. And I don't account bashing on evolution as an answer to these questions.

1. If theres a designer, is he still present and changing things in the universe or did he form everything as we know it today and then disappeared?

2. How old is the universe and therefor the earth based on information given by ID?

I hope you can clear things up for me about ID.

PS: If there are flaws in my grammer or spelling please excuse me. Since I'm from Germany I'm not a native english speaker.

The SCIENCE of ID makes no claims at all about any of that.

The SCIENCE of ID is simply to address the point "DOES THIS thing I am looking at show the attributes of something that is intelligently designed OR Can ROCKS do this same thing given enough time, mass and exposure to an energy field".

That's IT for ID.

Of course that is enough to scare the willies out of an atheist religionist.

But it is the only point in question for the ID scientist.

When an electronic circuit designed to SCAN (as your car radio does) and stop on frequencies that convey information - SKIPPING anything that is simply random background noise -- it does not philosphise about WHO or WHAT is sending the good ID signal. It just SEES it and stops.

IF you want to know about the DesignER you need something other than ID science.

Bob

 

[DavidLee]

Why do you care what people think?

I care what people think on the same cause you care about our souls. Because I care about humanity itself.

It's commendable that you are concerned for so many strangers. You are indeed a rare breed. Not so with me. I care about your soul because God loves you and I love God. I can't say I care for humanity.

“But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.†(Romans 5:8 NASB)

That's not me talking. Do you care about anyone who is not nice to you? I have found that the more poorly I'm treated by people the more I seem to care for them, but only as individuals.
(Forgive me for violating your prohibition of scripture and God in this thread.)

And for that I find it hard to take, that ID is pushed into schools. Because ID would be putting an end to the scientific process. No need to investigate further into scientific fields because "hey - it was designed that way - stop asking".

I don't see that happening anywhere. Evolutionists have a strong position in academia and politics. Even the majority of the population accepts evolution on it's face, largely without question (and for the reasons I already stated). Schools should not be afraid of children pointing out flaws in the accepted theories of anything.
If a proponent can only say "we already covered that" in the face of a question, then how is that science or education?

If the science leads to a designer, it leads to a designer. It would be a degradation of science as a whole to ignore any evidence. Most often proponents of ID take a conservative position on what the evidence actually shows (at least the ones I know are that way).
I don't think anyone seriously said "hey - it was designed that way - stop asking", but I suppose it's possible. If so, then I would agree with you on that point.

Our curiosity is one of the best features of mankind, since it's helping humanity to develope and break it's own boundaries.

I agree that curiosity is a good thing. I do not think society is getting better, either in standard of living (except for a few) or quality of life (except for a few). I do not see any science being done for altruistic motives, but only for motives of eventual profit by corporations. The only boundaries I see being broken are in salaries.

Greetings
Geth

Thank you for your sincere reply.

 

[Snidey]

Bob is right, all ID is is "that looks designed." Which is untestable, of course, and thus very poor science. Naturally, at one point humans thought just about everything was designed, because we couldn't explain rain, wind, the diversity of species, gravity, or the origins of life itself using naturally occurring mechanisms. The more we know, the less things this applies to. Even Bob's capitalization of science, which he uses to indicate that he really, really thinks he knows that ID is good science, can't save him.

 

[BobRyan]

I care what people think on the same cause you care about our souls. Because I care about humanity itself.
And for that I find it hard to take, that ID is pushed into schools. Because ID would be putting an end to the scientific process.

ID IS science "by definition".

It is simply the "ACADEMIC FREEDOM to FOLLOW THE DATA where it leads EVEN if that data leads to a conclusion in favor of obvious DESIGN that is not forced to pander to the dictates of atheist religionists".

As Wernher von Braun head of Nasa's Marshall Space Flight center argued to the California State board of eduction -- ID IS science "By Definition".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So ask about something that makes no sense in evolution. Might be a misunderstanding.

What a GREAT idea!!

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution)

A 1981 lecture presented at New York City's American Museum of Natural History

Colin PATTERSON:

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view,well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

Patterson - again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge [/u], apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Let's explore what is meant by "antiknowledge" that "conveys no knowledge" that merely "Affirms the fact while pleading ignorance as to the means" as Patterson finds it IN the myths and doctrines of evolutionism. What EXAMPLE does HE give?

again -- "let's read".

From a Letter by Patterson Written TO Sunderland –

"You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

Patterson argues that EVEN thoudh we can not "answer the question" and even though stories about "how one thing came from another" are just "stories easy enough to make up... NOT science" STILL devotees to atheist darwinist orthodoxy NEED to claim for Archaeopteryx AS a clear example of a transitional "anyway" -- IN SPITE of the non-science attribute of that claim!

Arguing FOR THE FACT while pleading ignorance as to the MEANS.

No wonder atheist darwinists could promote Simpson's fraudulent horse series for 50 years while LAMENTING it as "an example of a sequence that never happened in nature" in direct 1 on 1 interviews.

Just one simple example -- as requested.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Well that since I would have no better explanation I would go with ID. Thats what's the scientific process is about: Using the theory best matching the given circumstances. And since I'm isolated on an island without further knowledge of my surroundings I would pick ID.

ID -- the ACADEMIC FREEDOM to Follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does not pander to atheist religionist dogma.

But this isn't the case for Evolution or the theory of the origin of the universe. We have some pretty decent theorys of how we all got here, all backed up with large amonuts of data.

I think what you meant to say - "we have been duped" into thinking of atheist darwinism as some kind of "revealed truth" and that there is in fact no one single salient point essential to Darwinism that we know as "fact" - STARTING with "the stories about how one thing came from another".

Sunderland – reports:

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book.


On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:

[quote:42939]

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.
You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

[/quote:42939]

 

[VaultZero4Me]

ID is at best "god of the gaps".

It is our modern day Volcano god.

"Krog see fire come from mountain! Krog think man in mountain very angry. Man in mountain very strong. Krog must put food at mountain to make the god not mad no more!"

Since Krog had no idea about the inner workings of a volcano, his mind tries to make sense of it the best he knows how. Most of the cause and effect he is used to revolves around people or some thing taking an action, therefore his mind makes a logical connection to think of a very big and powerfull man making the mountain do that.

Same with thunder being the sound of the gods on chariots.

Sure, it made logical sense in those times, but after we have used science to fill in those gaps, those ideas seem silly to us.

Same with "Specified Complexity" or "Irreducible Complexity".

The main reason you find science to reject those ideas are because:

1. It deals with supernatural, which cannot be logically tested, measured, or studied in any way.
2. It promotes lazy science. If you do not know how something works, say a deity did it and not study it anymore.

If we let number 2 dictate how we did things, we would think a god personally made volcanos erupt, shook the earth to cause quakes, created tsunamis, changed the seasons, etc.

You get the picture.

 

[BobRyan]

ID is at best "god of the gaps".

ID "IS SCIENCE" by definition.

VZ4M "see von Braun letter... read von Braun letter. SEE head of NASA Marshall Space flight center argue the case with California board of education... then respond substantively some day."

But alas -- we are so often left with empty imagining about "stories easy enough to make up" when it comes to darwinists trying to frame a cogent response to the topic -- Patterson was certainly right about that!

Bob