The Scope of Intelligent Design

[perfessor]

There is currently a thread seeking a working definition for evolution; another seeking to identify the indicators for "design". My questions here seek to clarify some scope for Intelligent Design Theory (it is just a theory, right? ):

So, according to the theory:
1. Are some things designed, or is everything designed? Is it enough to show that some features - say, eyeballs and flagella, are designed? Or does the theory state that all features are designed? If the former, then the theory is easier to prove but limited in scope. If the latter, then a single counterexample shoots it out of the water.

2. Does the theory allow for multiple designers? Not trying to be facetious here - but why only one designer? If we look at, say, paintings by Picasso and Norman Rockwell, we can pretty much tell that there were (at least) two designers. Likewise, if we compare octopus eyes and human eyes; or kangaroos and deer; or chlorophyll and hemoglobin, do we not see indications that at least two designers were vying for the commission?

What do some of the proponents of ID say?

[YEC]

All things are designed.

There is just one designer.

[juliod]

There is just one designer.

See? This is what I mean when I say the ID is not a theory, but a political machination.

ID is just traditional creationism with the word "god" removed so that it can be introduced in public schools.

Poponents of ID only allow one possible "designer", and that is YHWH, the god of Genesis. ID does not get any more developed than that.

DanZ

[nikolayevich]

There is just one designer.

See? This is what I mean when I say the ID is not a theory, but a political machination.

ID is just traditional creationism with the word "god" removed so that it can be introduced in public schools.

Poponents of ID only allow one possible "designer", and that is YHWH, the god of Genesis. ID does not get any more developed than that.

You must not have read literature from the Discovery institute, perhaps the most formidable proponent of ID.

According to their website questions section:
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Under this definition, and according to other statements by Discovery, they don't name the designer, and couldn't really, since many in the movement would disagree with each other

Proponents who use the name "ID" (and understand what it was intended to represent as a movement) do not use the Bible to prove their case, nor do they try to cause schools to teach creation.

Also in the questions section:
"Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents."

[nikolayevich]

All things are designed.

There is just one designer.

What are your reasons for these just so statements. I think that if design theory is to gain any ground, reasons not just answers must be proffered.

[bdbthinker]

There is just one designer.

See? This is what I mean when I say the ID is not a theory, but a political machination.

ID is just traditional creationism with the word "god" removed so that it can be introduced in public schools.

Poponents of ID only allow one possible "designer", and that is YHWH, the god of Genesis. ID does not get any more developed than that.

You must not have read literature from the Discovery institute, perhaps the most formidable proponent of ID.

According to their website questions section:
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

That's just an opinion. I think things are best explained when we have enough evidence to explain them. Saying "god did it" explains nothing.

Under this definition, and according to other statements by Discovery, they don't name the designer, and couldn't really, since many in the movement would disagree with each other

I have a feeling they would all be in agreement with who the "Real Creator" is

Proponents who use the name "ID" (and understand what it was intended to represent as a movement) do not use the Bible to prove their case, nor do they try to cause schools to teach creation.

ID proponents want to skew the meaning of the word "theory" as if it means "only a guess". Take the Cobb County issue, for example. I don't see them fighting to have the "gravity is only a theory" sticker put on the books

Also in the questions section:
"Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents."

All scientific theories are open to critical scrutiny, otherwise they wouldn't be scientific theories. The IDers seem to want to call it dogmatic. The fact is, scientists might appear to be dogmatic about it but that's because the theory has solid evidence, it's falsifiable and you can make predictions with it...in other words, it's fact. Just like your average scientist might appear to be dogmatic about gravity..but again, gravity is a fact. The truth is they aren't being dogmatic about evolution, they know it is fact so they've accepted it as so. It's the IDers who want to call evolution into question. Why? I have a few guesses.

juliod states the ID movement is about "political machination". I agree, I have a hard time believing that Christian parents are deeply concerned with how the scientific method is being applied in highschool science classes...oh, and ONLY when it pertains to evolution.

[The Happy Humanist]

My questions here seek to clarify some scope for Intelligent Design Theory (it is just a theory, right? ):

I wasn't aware it had even made the grade as a Theory, in the scientific sense. I think it barely qualifies as an hypothesis.

[bdbthinker]

My questions here seek to clarify some scope for Intelligent Design Theory (it is just a theory, right? ):

I wasn't aware it had even made the grade as a Theory, in the scientific sense. I think it barely qualifies as an hypothesis.

I think you are right. Since it has absolutely no evidence to support it.

[The Happy Humanist]

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Under this definition, and according to other statements by Discovery, they don't name the designer, and couldn't really, since many in the movement would disagree with each other

So then, as far as they are concerned, Ernest Borgnine could have designed the universe?

[bdbthinker]

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Under this definition, and according to other statements by Discovery, they don't name the designer, and couldn't really, since many in the movement would disagree with each other

So then, as far as they are concerned, Ernest Borgnine could have designed the universe?

LOL. I prefer to think the Invisible Pink Unicorn...but hey, to each his own