Intelligent design Vs Evolution

Ahh so, learn something new every day. c.i.

different
Hiya all - I haven't looked thoroughly into intelligent design, but I did find this article, thought it might help to shine some light.

I think it's an extremely interesting theory and, in the interests of science, it's worth taking a look at, not just dismissing out-of-hand. No one knows where the faults in evolutionary theory lies - it is STILL only a theory, although one of the more widely accepted ones. (I'd say creationism is accepted by more people, though - but that's just a guess.)

<smiles>

I have a prejudice against the christian faith -and by extension, creationism - in that I don't ... believe in it. <g> I see how this could be construed as creationism, but it isn't necessarily so.

(Although, of course, that may be just what the creationists want us to believe, and they have devised this big-ass plan to deceive us. <winks>) Take a closer look at the theory.

cheers - anastasia


http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/idandcreationismnotsame011503.htm

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by John G. West, Jr.

Recent news accounts about controversies over evolution in Ohio and Georgia have contained references to the scientific theory of "intelligent design." Some advocates of Darwinian evolution try to conflate "intelligent design" (ID) with "creationism," sometimes using the term "intelligent design creationism." (1) In fact, intelligent design is quite different from "creationism," as even some of its critics have acknowledged. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism? According to Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." (2) In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

In reality, there are a variety of reasons why ID should not be confused with creationism:

1. "Intelligent Design Creationism" is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.

Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as "intelligent design creationists." Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term "intelligent design creationism" is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. "Intelligent design creationism" is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. "Intelligent design" is the proper neutral description of the theory.

2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)

3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.

The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s "refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God" and noted that "philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group." Indeed, according to AIG, "many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation…." (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing "the Biblical method," concluding that "Design is not enough!" (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism.

4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.

Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a "Faith Network" to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s "clergy outreach program" is "to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes" and to get church members to talk about "the theological implications of evolution." (8) The NCSE’s "Faith Network Director" even claims that "Darwin’s theory of evolution…has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God." (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory.

5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us." (10)

Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory.

(1) For a particularly egregious example of use of this term, see Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, edited by Robert T. Pinnock (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001).
(2) Richard Ostling, AP Writer, March 14, 2002.
(3) For good introductions to intelligent design theory, see Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996); Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyer, Science & Evidence For Design in the Universe (Ignatius, 2000); William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman and Littlefield, 2002); and Unlocking the Mystery of Life video documentary (Illustra Media, 2002).
(4) Carl Wieland, "AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement," August 30, 2002, available at http://www.answersingenesis.org.
(5) Henry M. Morris, "Design is not Enough!", Institute for Creation Research, July 1999, available at: http://www.icr.org/.
(6) Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1996), 6.
(7) E.O. Wilson, Consilience (New York: Vintage Books, 1998).
(8) Eugenie Scott, interview with ColdWater Media, September 2002. Courtesy of ColdWater Media.
(9) Phina Borgeson, "Introduction to the Congregational Study Guide for Evolution," National Center for Science Education, 2001, available at www.ncseweb.org.
(10) Robert Wright, Time, March 11, 2002.

* This article originally ran in the December issue of Research News

Here's an article about that debate in Texas.
http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=1055&xlc=1053668&xld=1055


Penn and Teller had a great "Bullshit" episode on intelligent design. May I recommend cheking that one out, and the one on feng shui .Penn and Teller Bullshit

PS, Some people are determined to get the christian religion into our public schools. They all think they are doing "god's" work.

Re: Intelligent design Vs Evolution

Problem 1: The merit of a scientific theory is measured not by how nicely it explains observations after the fact. It is measured by its ability to make predictions about future observations, and by the correctness of these observations. By this test, Darwinian evolution has been excelling for almost 150 years now, while 'intelligent design' has no merit at all.


Problem 2: Selection through the organism's environment makes evolution a non- random process, so this 'view' rests on little more but a stubborn refusal to look at key facts of the criticized mechanism.


I agree with the view that Darwinian Evolution is the best explanation for our geological, fossil, and genetic record -- as does pretty much every biologist, geologist, and chemist who has a reputation to lose in the scientific community. 'Intelligent design' is nothing but a thinly veiled backdoor for creationism to circumvent the first amendment.


Why not? Social science classes may well find it useful as a case study in political lobbyism by well-organized ideologists. But as part of a biology curriculum, it's as bad a waste of time as the 'Flat Earth theory' would be in a geography curriculum, or the 'everything rotates around the Earth' theory in physics.

Wow, Thomas, You said a mouthful there! Makes sense to me, but I'm not a christ'n.

Creationism
I first want to briefly respond to the article listed above by Dr. John West, Jr. He seems to be a very typical modern creationist. Recently, the trend has been for Creationists to want to add some "science" to their idea in hopes of gaining credibility. So, they changed the name to Intelligent Design, or even more humorous, "Creation Science", and added some scientific arguments to the theory. Make no mistake, just because a few arguments based on science are added to an idea (most of which are centered around trying to disprove evolution, rather than prove Creation) that does not make the theory itself a scientific one. Its still just Creation theory wearing some new clothes, and is definately NOT a science.
I feel that to teach Creation or "Intelligent Design" in the biology classroom would not only be a waste of time, it would be a great disservice to our students. It would cloud their minds on the issue of what a science really is. Biology teachers today have a hard enough time teaching students the scientific method and getting them to understand it. Why make their job harder by calling non-scientific ideas science. I think that would be a huge step backward in american high-schools.
Greg

I don't consider it necessary to teach Intelligent Design in biology classes. However, it's not wrong to teach it, as it gives students an idea of what sorts of ideas have been proposed. Other incorrect ideas from other people including Lamarck were taught in biology class. But if Intelligent Design were to be taught in class, it has to be considered incorrect, much as Lamarck's ideas were incorrect.

I consider Intelligent Design inaccurate and unscientific because in order for there to be this intelligent designer, it would indicate that some entity (ie, a creator, even if it's/he's not god) exists. This conflicts with evolution because in evolution, there is no creator. Also, this entity would have to be explained, and we should know how it/he works in order to be considered scientific. Intelligent Design isn't exactly efficient anyways. Why would an "intelligent designer" create organisms with flaws? Consider that some animals have their eyeballs wired backwards, and have poorer eyesight. Real intelligent. If intelligent design must be taught, then these flaws in the plausibility of intelligent design must also be taught.

I can't quite grasp the implication that the process of 'natural selection' was merely to reach a required form. You can't have a mechanism that allows for the creation of a number of species from a single ancestor and then point to one of them and say 'That's the one!'. Instead of saying that all species were created at once and each one perfect, you palm off the argument by saying that the intention was to create these perfect species all along. In one hundred thousand years from now there will be species of animals that either don't exist now or are the survivors of extinctions, at that point will they still be 'perfect' by the standards of today's IDers?

They aren't perfect. Not very many species can be classified as "perfect". For example, we have our eyes wired backwards so we don't see as well as other creatures with eyes that are properly wired. We have appendices that are next to useless, and may cause one to die. I don't see what you mean by not being able to have a mechanism. A species forms when an organism mutates (through reproduction) and survives better than its parents. When its generation survives, the new species is formed. Many people mistaken evolution for metamorphasis, which is something different. And no, the species weren't all created at once, since the fossil record is consistent. Not all fossils are found in the same place.
Natural selection was not meant so that a required form would be reached. Natural selection describes the process of mutated organisms that survive better (or worse) than their ancestors. The new species isn't necessarily a required form, since there are many ways that an organism could have mutated and survived.

ACLU Backs Teachers Who Won't Teach Intelligent Design





RIO RANCHO, N.M. -- Intelligent Design is sparking controversy across the country and right here in New Mexico.

Sometimes confused with Creationism, Intelligent Design is the controversial assertion that something or someone -- God or otherwise -- created the universe, not an unguided process such as natural selection.

The Rio Rancho School Board has a policy that allows the teaching of alternative evolutionary theories like Intelligent Design. Now, the American Civil Liberties Union said it will support any Rio Rancho teacher who does not want to teach it in their classrooms.

The ACLU said any teacher who is disciplined for refusing to teach or discuss Intelligent Design should contact them.

This may be a digression however, I was wondering how the selling of intelligent design is progressing in other places around the globe. To me it seems that here in the US we have taken a step back in mans development. When will we begin to worshiping the sun, moon, wind or whatever to satisfy our need to explain the unknown? .

au, Fundamental christians have taken over only our country so far, but one never knows about the religious.

au, Are you trying to say that progress is defined by teaching the theory of evolution as fact. On the contrary. Without even teaching God you would have to say that the more we discover how complex even a protein strand is that it becomes harder to believe that it just happened by chance. The odds that a single complete and functioning dna strand formed all by itself are 1x10 to the 40,000th. This has been substantiated by many secular scientists as well. Which is, by the way, why the term changed from "creationism" to intelligent design. Many secular scientists will say that there had to have been a design plan when confronted with these facts, they just won't say who the designer is. They're still trying to figure that one out.
You can believe and even prove intelligent design by the lack of provable evidence to the contrary. Where are all the transitional forms Darwin talked about? Why was it necessary for a worm to form an eye on it's back for no reason? How did something come from nothing for no reason other than "just because".

derve7
Your reasoning is the reason or justification for the accepting of religion by the masses. If you can't explain it there must be an unknown force that guides everything.

derve wrote


In effect you are claiming. If you can't prove it wrong it must be right. That is a bit of obtuse reasoning.

It's not only obtuse, but that's what fundies do best; want the rest of us to prove the negative.

Au, you're missing the larger point. Surprise, surprise. I was merely stating that teaching theory as fact is just as far a reach in a scientific setting. Not to mention you didn't deal with anything but my last statement. Which is just as logical as saying you need to believe these"facts" we haven't actually proven. Such as life spontaneously coming into existence.

derve, You are the one missing the "larger point." And that's not a surprise. Your answer to everything that can't be explained is "the creator."

Show us what theory is being taught as "fact?"

Derve 7 asked


So it wouldn't need to turn it's head. Any more riddles?
I have one. Why did the chicken cross the road?
To get to the other side.

Ci, Are you sure you know what the point is? Actually, my answer will vary depending on the question. Nice try though. The question about specie to specie transitional forms is answered very simply not by "the creator" as you so intelligently retorted, but by the fact that there aren't any. Show me these millions upon millions of "fish birds" and others your good buddy Darwin so confidently wrote about.