In particular, intelligent design does not depend on the biblical account of creation. For design theorists, the conclusion of design constitutes an inference from data, not a deduction from religious authority. Intelligent design theory provides a rigorous scientific demonstration of this long-standing intuition. Let me stress, the complexity-specification criterion is not a principle that comes to us demanding our unexamined acceptance--it is not an article of faith. Rather it is the outcome of a careful and sustained argument about the precise interrelationships between necessity, chance and design.
Its only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable. All the design could therefore have emerged through a cosmic evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang. What's more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe. ID has no doctrine of creation. Scott and Branch at best could argue that many of the ID proponents are religious believers in a deity, but that has no bearing on the content of the theory.
Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence
ID claims that many naturalistic evolutionary scenarios like the origin of life are unsupported by evidence and that we simply do not know the answer at this time to what happened. This is not a matter of being vague but rather of not pretending to knowledge that we don't have. If intelligent design is truly a scientific discipline, then this makes perfect sense, for there are limits on what science can tell us, and science is not capable of studying the evidence to tell us if the designer was supernatural or natural. Intelligent design theory begins and ends with observations of the natural world.
It begins with observations of intelligent agents in the natural world, in order to quantify the sort of information they tend to emplace into their designed objects. It ends with observations as we study natural objects to determine if they contain that information which we know is a tell-tale sign that an intelligent agent played a hand in the origin of that object. True to the scientific method, throughout the entire process of testing for intelligent design, we are making observations of the observable natural world.
Science, and thus intelligent design theory, can only discover what is found in the observable realm. We cannot access the supernatural. Thus intelligent design proponents make it clear that all their theory can do is tell if a natural object bears the hallmarks of having been designed--it cannot tell you anything about the designer, much less that it was a supernatural deity.
If some supernatural agent took action in the natural world, we might be able to detect that action, but not detect whether the actor was supernatural or otherwise.
- A Theologian Evaluates Intelligent Design: Part 3 of 3.
- Einladung zur Gestalttherapie: Eine Einführung mit Beispielen (German Edition).
- Melvin Mulder - RationalWiki.
As Eugenie Scott herself concedes "Science cannot tell you who done it, but how it happened. Understanding the Identity of the Designer: The scientific theory of intelligent design cannot identify the designer, but only detects the past occurrence of intelligent design in the natural world. Intelligent design theory cannot name the designer because it works off the assumption that all intelligent agents would generally create certain types of informational patterns when they act.
Other writers explore the issue further, asking if life, overseen and guided by a higher being, might just be an experiment--as experienced by Schmidt, the newest member of "Project: Creation" by Laura Resnick--and, if so, what happens if it fails "The Final Report on the Eden Project" by Bill McCay. But even when the fate of the planet isn't at stake, there are some people or some governments who are more than willing to use God's designs for more malicious purposes "The Signature of God," Michael Hiebert.
As with any anthology, this has its weak points. A bit jumbled in places, and bit repetitive at times, but the stronger stories definitely outshine the uneven samples. Definitely worth the time. Edit--February: Disregard those last two lines. Somewhat entertaining, sure, and probably worth the time if you don't expect anything special, but definitely not worth three stars.
More like two. Jun 03, Wendy rated it did not like it.
Intelligent Design advocates finally sneak God back into their “science” « Why Evolution Is True
This is an anthology, which I only ended up reading half of. The funny thing is, I checked it out from the library on its title alone because I had checked out a few books about design. I read, "Intelligent Design--that sounds interesting. Not my normal fare.
However, beyond that, the editing was NOT well done. I can overlook one or two errors, but there were more than just a few. My This is an anthology, which I only ended up reading half of. My checkout time had run out before I finished it, and I don't plan on checking it out again. Jun 08, Powwow rated it really liked it. Intelligent Design was a good read. I enjoyed this book because it possesses thought provoking creative ideas about the existence of God… as well as entertaining, yet curiously disturbing ideas as well.
I recommend this book for all who enjoy reading the imagination of good authors. Most everyone has opinion on the topics of evolution and creation… but you will definitely find other than the traditional possibilities in this read. Mar 11, David rated it it was ok.
- Is Intelligent Design Viable? The Craig-Ayala Debate | Reasonable Faith.
- La lectura, Manual para la comprensión de textos e hipertextos (Spanish Edition)!
- The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design.
- 125 reasons to believe in God.
- Is Intelligent Design Viable? The Craig-Ayala Debate!
- Beyond Intelligent Design.
- Signature in the Cell.
The stories generally have very little to do specifically with the concept of intelligent design, but they're all reasonably entertaining, some of them more than others. Alana rated it liked it Jan 15, Andysc83 rated it liked it Dec 11, Katherine rated it really liked it Jul 05, Jim Murrey rated it it was amazing Jun 09, Victoria rated it really liked it Sep 29, Phil A rated it really liked it Apr 25, Michelle rated it did not like it Sep 10, Susanne rated it it was ok Mar 05, Elizabeth Dalton rated it liked it Sep 18, Bender rated it really liked it Sep 11, Miggy rated it liked it Sep 18, Claire rated it it was ok Aug 13, Peterdyr rated it did not like it Apr 03, Ben Safta rated it it was ok Dec 09, Today, some read the evidence of nature and find no evidence for the existence of a Deity.
Richard Dawkins, the contemporary biologist, notorious atheist, penned a book with the title The Blind Watchmaker. In the context of the warfare between evolution and creationism in the United States, the problem is perhaps less with believers who read the Bible as a literal account of Creation and more with believers who read Richard Dawkins as a literal account of evolution.
The classic example of this is the human eye, to which Charles Darwin himself called attention.
How could such a complex mechanism with so many independent parts have arisen by gradual incremental changes, when the mechanism would not function without all of the parts working together? Besides, God is either everywhere present in all processes of creation or God might as well be nowhere.
So if God is everywhere, then why is God so hard to perceive? This God would have designed a universe with photographs of himself hung everywhere in nature. We would be compelled to believe in the existence of this God, because everywhere we turned with our microscopes, telescopes, and other devices, there would be both the evidence for his existence and of course also the secret police to enforce our acknowledgment.
Everything in the universe would occur by divine order, micromanaged in five-year plans and designed in a command economy. We might wonder whether such a dictator God would be worthy of our admiration and love, but there would be no doubt, no uncertainty. If the only other choice we have is the literal reading of Richard Dawkins, however, then maybe we should stop teaching evolution altogether.
Mere survival and reproduction do not provide adequate purposes for human aspirations.
How DNA Proves God Made All Creatures Great and Small
The core of the evolution wars is whether a scientific understanding of biology allows room for religious and philosophical commitments to purpose in human life, purposes that somehow also must connect to the unfolding history of the universe. While scientists often wax poetic about nature, evoking wonder, awe, and indeed reverence, they mostly lack philosophical and theological language to contextualize such feelings and motivations as continuous with perennial spiritual quests.
The history of the anti-evolution debates in the United States is less about biology and more about morality. Going back to the Scopes Trial, the progressive politician, William Jennings Bryan, got involved largely because of his objections to Social Darwinism and Eugenics, which at the time were widely used to justify any number of social injustices.