Definitions of ID?

From: FMAJ1019@aol.com
Date: Mon Sep 04 2000 - 14:33:24 EDT

  • Next message: Cliff Hamrick: "Re: A problem with ID-theorists' view of macroevolution"

    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.
        



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 04 2000 - 15:26:43 EDT