The concept of Intelligent Design SUPPORTS Darwin's theory.

[johnaries]

Let me begin by clarifying a few points:

1. I support children discussing the idea of Intelligent Design. However, it is not based on the Scientific Method and is not Science, and therefore should not be discussed in Science class. There are plenty of appropriate venues for this discussion, but Science Class is not one of them.

2. We need to differentiate between “evolution“ and Darwin‘s Theory of Natural Selection. “Evolution” has been repeatedly observed under proper Scientific Methods and is a proven fact. Species do evolve into new species. It is Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection (which uses evolution to explain the current state of existing species) which is still a “theory”.

3. Because under the Scientific Method a theory can only become a fact if the same results can be directly observed under conditions that can be reproduced and observed independently under laboratory conditions, the Theory of Natural Selection can neither be proven or dis-proven until we can produce new worlds under laboratory conditions and observe the process of evolution and natural selection over the course of several billion years. Unless we can do that, Natural Selection will always be “technically” considered a Theory under the Scientific Method, no matter how much other evidence supports it.

4. Some people argue that Science and Religion contradict each other. My college Physics professor who was also a Minister had the perfect response: Science asks “how?” Religion asks “why?” Those are two different questions.

So, let’s take Intelligent Design out of the Science Class and put it in a more appropriate class and have a real discussion.

I am reminded of a short story by my favorite author Isaac Asimov called “Darwinian Pool Room“. He suggested the idea of someone who had never heard of pool or billiards walking into a room containing a billiard table after a pool game when the players had already left. All this observer sees is a billiard table with a cue and a cue ball lying on top and the billiard balls in various pockets.

Since the observer had never heard of pool or billiards, it would only be natural for the observer to assume that someone placed the table there as it currently is, with the balls placed in the various pockets and the cue stick and cue ball lying in their current position.
If someone came along and told this observer that an Intelligent Designer had “racked up the balls” in a group , and then used the cue stick to strike the cue ball in such a way that when it struck the group of racked balls so that they would act and react in such a way that each ball would fall into the pockets in a certain sequence resulting in the balls falling in the pockets resulting in the configuration that the observer now sees…. Well, the observer would probably think that’s just crazy talk!

How does this apply to Intelligent Design? Well, if you assume there was a Designer, then if that Designer created the world “as it is” then that would imply that the Designer wasn’t very creative, artistic, or “intelligent”. However, I personally believe that the Designer was creative, artistic, and Intelligent enough so that he could have “racked up the balls” and delivered a single master stroke so that all of the billiard balls ended up falling into exactly the pockets that He called.

To sum up: if you believe in Creationism which claims that the world was created as it is now, then you must believe that God is an incompetent idiot. If you believe in Intelligent Design, then you should believe that God designed the universe using some kind of intelligent, artistic method, such as Natural Selection. To believe otherwise is an insult to God.

I have seen many works of art created by man. None of them compare to the artistry of a simple waterfall created by God over the course of untold years. I believe God is an Artist. Therefore, I believe God created the universe using such artistic methods as Natural Selection.

Finally, if someone wearing designer clothes and expensive jewelry and who rides in a limousine tells me that natural disaster’s are God’s wrath and asks for money to do God‘s work, I am going to ask why he used the money sent to him by people on Social Security and limited incomes to buy expensive clothes instead of using it to feed the poor as Jesus commanded.

[C_U_L8R]

1. But not vice-versa

Provide evidence of this so-called "designer"

[johnaries]

9. Exactly!

There is no direct evidence of a "designer". However, if you accept that there is a Designer then you have to accept that there is a Design.

If one accepts the idea that there was an Intelligent Design, then Darwin's Natural Selection is the best evidence because it is a design, and it is intelligent.

Natural Selection doesn't prove the existence of God. It doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

But, if I believed in God and Intelligent Design, I would believe that God used Natural Selection because it is more Intelligent.

[C_U_L8R]

10. Or maybe God just screwed up...

and we're just orbiting around
the perimeters of a cosmic garbage can
just waiting for the compactor to kick in.

[Dr Fate]

2. Nothing wrong with asking "why" in a philosophy or sunday school class.

But telling kids in Biology class that "god could have done this" is wrong in that it cannot be proven with science. Just the facts, Ma'am.

Creation debate belongs in a philosophy or a comparative religion class- or possibly in civics or political science class these days!!!

[Ksec]

3. So God is what?

An extraterrestial? A big cloud being? What?

Dont get me wrong. I wanna believe theres something after this life but my brain keeps telling me its all a big hoax made up by men, to give us hope that theres more to life than this one shot.

[lvx35]

4. A note: There is no "scientific fact" in scientific method

"Because under the Scientific Method a theory can only become a fact if the same results..."

Untested assertion is a hypothesis, once tested in labratory conditions it becomes a theory. Science doesn't recognize any findings as fact, because they can always be contradicted by later data.

edit: Though sometimes the term scientific law is used interchangeably with theory.

[lvx35]

5. My theological/metaphysical two cents.

I am a science guy and I believe absolutely in a creator. When I look at the theory of evolution, I see the hand of the creator at work. This is because I "believe things happen for a reason" which is just something that science can't prove - its a metaphysical view. Nor does it contradict evolution: I see the creation as a work of art, like a piece of music. In music, each wave produces its sound because it obeys the physical laws associated with sound waves. In creation, each being follows through its expression through the physical laws that dictate its nature, evolution and natural selection being one of them.

edit: Why does God follow laws? Artists know: Form is liberating, restriction creates genius...If that makes any sense.

[buzzard]

13. Makes sense to me in a convoluted way.n/t

[bowens43]

6. well

1. The only proper venue for ID is in a philosophy class . There is no proper venue for it to be taught as truth , fact or an alternative to evolution.

2. Theory is as good as it gets in science. It's the top of the line.

3. Theories don't become fact. Facts and theories are different sorts of things. Theory is as good as it gets in science. Theories are not proven.

4. Science is based on evidence. There is NO evidence that supports the idea that there are super natural beings. None. Zip. Nada.

There is no evidence of intelligent design and there is no reason to assume that it is needed to explain the diversity of life on planet earth. ID doesn't rise to the level of theory.

[Ediacara]

7. If I may

1) Where would you have them discuss this? Hopefully your answer is "Sunday School" or some other applicable religious education.

2) You are partially right here, but your terminology is not correct. Natural Selection, first proposed by Darwin and Wallace, and since supported by pretty much everyone, is the theoretical mechanism of evolution. There have been other theoretical mechanisms proposed, such as Lamarckism, and Lysenkoism, but those mechanisms have been falsified. Natural Selection has not been falsified.

Where you fall short though, is with the word theory. Theory in everyday speech is essentially a synonym of "idea." In science however, theory is no such thing. A theory is a rigorous explanation of observed phenomena that has been tested numerous times by numerous researchers and has not been falsified. Evolution (and all theories for that matter) can never be considered "proven fact" because there is always the potential of falsification.

Some other theories you may be familiar with are Universal Gravitation and the Germ Theory of disease transmission. Those two theories actually have been tested less and have less supporting data than Natural Selection.

3) This statement is incorrect for the reasons outlined above. Also, Natural Selection has been observed numerous times so the point is moot.

4) Exactly correct.

And as for the rest.... If you think the universe is designed, I must ask why? Have you an example of an undesigned universe to compare this universe to? And of course, there is the ultimate question that simply won't go away: what designed the designer?

[johnaries]

8. Thank you! Your post represents true debate,

rather than just spouting "talking points". which is what I would like to see in our country.

The answer to #1 (where would you like to have them discuss this) is THE HOME! Parents should be the ones to have this discussion with their children. It would be nice to also have such a discussion in Sunday School, or in a Philsophy Class in school, but it is all useless if the parents don't have a meaningful discussion with their child.

[upi402]

11. Thanks. Scientific theory is a set of facts that tells a story

not merely an 'idea' as the word 'theory is commonly understood to mean.

[hunter]

12. There are no "appropriate venues" to teach ID in public schools.

It is bullshit. It's a damned snake oil salesman sticking his foot in your doorway; a fundamentalist preacher's wife's war against science disguised as a "philosophy" course. It is always like that.

There's a kind of Intelligent design that says God created the universe at the physicist's "Big Bang," at t=0, but with that sort of Intelligent Design there is nothing more to say, certainly not enough for one day's class, and most especially not an entire course. Any discussion beyond that is entirely religion or casual speculation and not something our taxes should ever pay for.

I believe in God. I believe in Creation. But "intelligent design" as it is commonly presented is a pathetic excuse for human ignorance. It is the worship of a humbug god hiding oz-like behind the curtains.

"I am the great and powerful oz!"

Who needs that god? Go get'm Toto.

If your are selling ID in my public schools, you best get your foot out of my doorway or lose it.

Yes, the universe is a place of wonders. We can perceive only a tiny fraction of these wonders with our very limited senses and within our very brief lifetimes.

But every description of Intelligent Design I know of dishonors the vast reality of Creation. Intelligent Design closes our minds to new questions; it stifles our curiousity and our creativity. To compare Creation to a billiards table, as you did, is a kind of blasphemy.

There is no middle ground of "Intelligent Design" between the Creationists and the Evolutionists, only a deep dark abyss.