Reply to: RE: Definitions of ID?
I've had a similar problem in defining ID. Another main problem is that the proponents don't have a clear vision either. Most writings on ID discuss the origin of living creatures. However, there are some IDers who talk about the whole universe as being designed. The ironic part is that the idea of a designed universe is probably more palatable in the scientific sense in that none of the natural laws have to be violated. The main problem with the idea that only living creatures are intelligently designed is that this implies that there are separate laws of nature for living and non-living things. That is something that we just don't detect. It also implies that miracles (divine interventions) are necessary for the formation of life. Again, this is something that we don't detect.
But, in the end, I think any attempt to define ID is futile until the ID community can get their act together and try to define it themselves. After all, that's their job, not ours.
Cliff H
Cliff H
FMAJ1019 wrote:
>I am trying to find out what ID exactly means. Please feel free to add other >resources or definitions.
>
>http://www.nabt.org/resources_panda1.html
>
>"First, it is defined (p. 150) as the theory that biological organisms owe >their origin to a preexistent intelligence, God presumably being this >preexistent intelligence."
>
>It should be interesting to note that present inferences of ID cannot >exclude natural forces as the designer.
>
>"Second, observing that "Darwinian evolution locates the origin of new >organisms in material causes, Pandas declares that (p 14): >
> Intelligent design, by contrast, locates the origin of new organisms in an >immaterial cause in a blueprint, a plan, a pattern devised by an >intelligent agent. "
>
>A plan or blueprint is a very subjective indicator. Is there a purposeful >arrangement of parts? Purposeful in what manner? That it works or that it >works according to a plan?
>I'd argue that no evidence of purposefulness exists.
>
>"And third, in a discussion of fossils, a further declaration offers yet >more precision (p. 99-100): >
> Intelligent design means that various forms of life began >abruptly
> through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features
> intact fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, >and
> wings, etc. >
>That seems to be disproven by the evidence.
>
>"The publication of Mere Creation signals a broadening, multi-disciplinary >movement of scholars who challenge naturalistic
>evolution on scientific and philosophical grounds. Scientifically, >specialists in the relevant fields show that the evidence points
>to intelligence which fine-tuned the universe and designed complex organisms
>. Philosophically, the authors insist that origins
>science must be separated from the naturalism which excludes design or a >Designer by definition. "
>
>http://www.origins.org/science/mcbook.html
>
>I disagree that naturalism excludes design or a designer per definition.
>
>
>"The irreducible complexity of such biochemical systems cannot be explained >by the
> Darwinian mechanism, nor indeed by any naturalistic evo
>lutionary mechanism proposed to
> date."
>
>http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html
>
>Seems to be disproven as well.
>
>"Design: a purposefully chosen mental plan intended for implementation; or, >the implementation of such a plan, particularly in the purposeful
> arrangement of parts in something."
>
>http://www.okbu.edu/academics/natsci/hp/keas/papers/contingency.htm
>
>But this one cannot exclude natural designers either. Purposeful is a poor >choice since it implies a designer that can look forward but that is not >necessarily required.
> >
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Return-Path: <evolution-owner-Cliff_Hamrick=baylor.edu@udomo3.calvin.edu>
>Received: from ccis08.baylor.edu (ccis08.baylor.edu [129.62.1.2])
> by ccis01.baylor.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA22248
> for <Cliff_Hamrick@STUMAIL.BAYLOR.EDU>; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 14:26:52 -0500 (CDT)
>Received: from lists.calvin.edu (udomo3.calvin.edu)
> by baylor.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #33495)
> with SMTP id <01JTS153BO00FEZ7Y9@baylor.edu> for
> Cliff_Hamrick@STUMAIL.BAYLOR.EDU (ORCPT rfc822;Cliff_Hamrick@baylor.edu); Mon,
> 4 Sep 2000 14:26:51 CDT
>Received: (qmail 11817 invoked by uid 27); Mon, 04 Sep 2000 19:26:13 +0000
>Received: (qmail 11811 invoked from network); Mon, 04 Sep 2000 19:26:13 +0000
>Received: from ursa.calvin.edu (153.106.4.1) by udomo3.calvin.edu with SMTP;
> Mon, 04 Sep 2000 19:26:13 +0000
>Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39])
> by ursa.calvin.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e84JQh502612 for
> <evolution@calvin.edu>; Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:26:43 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from FMAJ1019@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.)
> id e.32.99ef0b6 (4456) for <evolution@calvin.edu>; Mon,
> 04 Sep 2000 14:33:24 -0400 (EDT)
>Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 14:33:24 -0400 (EDT)
>From: FMAJ1019@aol.com
>Subject: Definitions of ID?
>Sender: evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu
>To: evolution@calvin.edu
>Message-id: <32.99ef0b6.26e544f4@aol.com>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Unknown sub 10015
>Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>Precedence: bulk
>Delivered-to: evolution@lists.calvin.edu
>Status: >
Common sense isn't.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 04 2000 - 16:19:43 EDT