Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[blackzeus]

Let's get it crackin'.


I'll get straight to the point with the following statements.

1) I believe everything on earth was created by a Master Designer, and further more I claim that is true.

Simple induction proof:

Let N be the set of all existing carbon based entities, sentient and non-sentient, both naturally occurring and man-made

Let the elements of N be ordered from the simplest carbon based molecular structure observable/unobservable to man to the most complex structure observable/unobservable to man

The zero element and the following sequence for the proof can be set arbitrarily in succession, for this process we will use wood based structures for this proof

Let N0 = walking cane, N1 = chair, N2 = cage, N3 = hut,...

We will subjectively show that for P(n) holds true for all elements in the set of n, specifically, that all elements in the set of P(n) is created by intelligent design, or mathetically, in terms of structural complexity, if P(n+1) > P(n), and P(n) was created by intelligent design, P(n+1) must also have been created by intelligent design, and b), we will show that P(n) is an additive function, ergo P(a+b) = P(a)+P(b)

2 part Basis step:

1)
P(0) = walking cane which can be subjectively deemed as a creation of intelligent design

P(1) = chair which can be subjectively deemed to be more complex than the walking cane

This holds true since the chair can be subjectively deemed to be a creation of intelligent design as well, thus it holds true P(1)>P(0)->P(1)eP(n), e meaning "element of"

2) Let a=1 and b = 0

P(a+b) = P(1+0) = P(1)

However from step one we know P(1)eP(n)

Thus P(1+0) = P(1) + P(0) logically, because both are elements in the set P(n), or basically both are elements created by intelligent design




Induction step:

P(n+1) =P(n+1)>P(n)->P(n+1)eP(n)

......P(n+1) = P(n+1+0)

......P(n+1+0) = P(n+1) + P(0)

.....P(n+1)>P(0)

....P(0)eP(n)--->P(n+1)eP(n) for all N

 

[blackzeus]

Simple Questions:

Would we say computers are descendants of telephones?

Would we say cars are descendants of carriages?

Would we say calculators are descendants of abacii?

So why do anthropologist insists that we are descendants of apes? Is it impossible to believe that we are distinct separate creations?

 

[Liu Kang]

Nice initiative and I hope the discussion will remain civil.

 

[blackzeus]

http://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-intelligent-design.html

Long read, the important part is bolded

Question: "What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design?"

Answer: Modern scientific insight has revealed startling evidence for intelligent design from various disciplines, from biology to astronomy, from physics to cosmology. The purpose of this article is to summarize some of the major arguments.

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Biology
In recent years, William Dembski has pioneered a methodology which has become known as the “explanatory filter,” a means by which design can be inferred from the phenomena of nature in particular living organisms. The filter consists of a sequence of three yes/no questions that guide the decision process of determining whether a given phenomenon can be attributed to an intelligent causal agency. Based upon this filter, if an event, system or object is the product of intelligence, then it will

1. Be contingent
2. Be complex
3. Display an independently specified pattern

Thus, in order to be confident that a given phenomenon is the product of intelligent design, it cannot be a regularity that necessarily stems from the laws of nature, nor can it be the result of chance. According to Dembski, the explanatory filter highlights the most important quality of intelligently designed systems, namely, specified complexity. In other words, complexity alone is not enough to indicate the work of an intelligent agent; it must also conform to an independently specified pattern.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-intelligent-design.html#ixzz3NDB9IwbW

Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins’ observation that, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Physics
In physics, the concept of cosmic fine tuning gives further support to the design inference. The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a “razor’s edge” for permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that, indeed, there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

One example of fine tuning is the rate at which the universe expands. This value must be delicately balanced to a precision of one part in 1055. If the universe expanded too quickly, matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse before the formation of stars.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-intelligent-design.html#ixzz3NDBEZjBk

Besides that, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 1040. If this value were to be increased slightly, all stars would be at least 40% more massive than our sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support complex life. If this value were to be decreased slightly, all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun. This would render them incapable of producing heavy elements necessary to sustain life.

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Cosmology
With modern discoveries in the field of cosmology, the concept of a definitive beginning of the cosmos has been demonstrated almost beyond question. The Kalam argument states that

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself.

It thus appears from the data that an uncaused first cause exists outside the four dimensions of space and time, which possesses eternal, personal and intelligent qualities in order to possess the capability of intentionally bringing space, matter—and indeed even time itself—into being.

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – Conclusion
This article is but a brief overview of some of the key elements involved in the design inference. The purpose is to demonstrate the wide body of support for intelligent design from a large range of disciplines, including biology, physics and cosmology.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-intelligent-design.html#ixzz3NDBLX5DV

 

[blackzeus]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/

Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design


FOREWORD

This is – and will perhaps always be – a work in progress. Patrick and others originated this area of the website when they grew weary of refuting the same old shop worn anti-ID arguments over and over again. Their work was ad hoc and progressive, but in the end they had developed an impressive resource. In the fall of 2008, the UD administration asked StephenB, GPuccio and Kairosfocus to take the work Patrick had begun and reorganize it and add to it. Then, the various sections were subjected to public comment and given a final edit by Barry Arrington. Thus, no one person is responsible for the final product. It is an amalgam that resulted from this process. To all who contributed, the UD administration expresses thanks.

INTRODUCTION

For a long time, Intelligent Design (ID) proponents, enlightened by current scientific knowledge and faithful to its methods, have been making specific and objective arguments about the origin of biological information. Nevertheless, many critics mistakenly insist that ID, in spite of its well-defined purpose, its supporting evidence, and its mathematically precise paradigms, is not really a valid scientific theory. All too often, they make this charge on the basis of the scientists’ perceived motives.

We have noticed that some of these false objections and attributions, largely products of an aggressive Darwinist agenda, have found their way into institutions of higher learning, the press, the United States court system, and even the European Union policy directives. Routinely, they find expression in carefully-crafted talking points, complete with derogatory labels and personal caricatures, all of which appear to have been part of a disinformation campaign calculated to mislead the public.

Many who interact with us on this blog recycle this misinformation. Predictably, they tend to raise notoriously weak objections that have been answered thousands of times. What follows is a list of those objections and our best attempt to answer them in abbreviated form. If you have been sent here, you are now being asked to familiarize yourself with basic ID knowledge so that you can acquire the minimal amount of information necessary to conduct meaningful dialogue.

In the spirit of mutually constructive dialogue, we therefore invite you to examine the following.

For Uncommon Descent: StephenB, GPuccio, & Kairosfocus Jan. 2009

^^^can't stress the bolded enough

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Let's get it crackin'.


I'll get straight to the point with the following statements.

1) I believe everything on earth was created by a Master Designer, and further more I claim that is true.

Simple induction proof:

Let N be the set of all existing carbon based entities, sentient and non-sentient, both naturally occurring and man-made

Let the elements of N be ordered from the simplest carbon based molecular structure observable/unobservable to man to the most complex structure observable/unobservable to man

The zero element and the following sequence for the proof can be set arbitrarily in succession, for this process we will use wood based structures for this proof

Let N0 = walking cane, N1 = chair, N2 = cage, N3 = hut,...

We will subjectively show that for P(n) holds true for all elements in the set of n, specifically, that all elements in the set of P(n) is created by intelligent design, or mathetically, in terms of structural complexity, if P(n+1) > P(n), and P(n) was created by intelligent design, P(n+1) must also have been created by intelligent design, and b), we will show that P(n) is an additive function, ergo P(a+b) = P(a)+P(b)

2 part Basis step:

1)
P(0) = walking cane which can be subjectively deemed as a creation of intelligent design

P(1) = chair which can be subjectively deemed to be more complex than the walking cane

This holds true since the chair can be subjectively deemed to be a creation of intelligent design as well, thus it holds true P(1)>P(0)->P(1)eP(n), e meaning "element of"

2) Let a=1 and b = 0

P(a+b) = P(1+0) = P(1)

However from step one we know P(1)eP(n)

Thus P(1+0) = P(1) + P(0) logically, because both are elements in the set P(n), or basically both are elements created by intelligent design




Induction step:

P(n+1) =P(n+1)>P(n)->P(n+1)eP(n)

......P(n+1) = P(n+1+0)

......P(n+1+0) = P(n+1) + P(0)

.....P(n+1)>P(0)

....P(0)eP(n)--->P(n+1)eP(n) for all N

1. it doesn't matter what you believe since theres no evidence to support it

2. Your logic is inherently flawed because it tries to simplify complex biology into notionations that don't comprise even all known (and inherently unknown) conditions.

3. None of this "logic" (or perversion of such a concept) demonstrates any known evidence biological or scientifically demonstrable supporting your views

Induction doesn't confirm beliefs or answer scientific questions

 

[blackzeus]

1] ID is “not science”
On the contrary, as Dr William Dembski, a leading intelligent design researcher, has aptly stated:

“Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”

At its best, science is an unfettered (but ethically and intellectually responsible) and progressive search for the truth about our world based on reasoned analysis of empirical observations. The very antithesis of an unfettered search for truth occurs when scientists don intellectual blinkers and assert dogmatically that all conclusions must conform to “materialist” philosophy. Such an approach prevents the facts from speaking for themselves. The search for truth can only suffer when it is artificially constrained by those who would impose materialist orthodoxy by authoritarian fiat before the investigation has even begun. This approach obviously begs the question, but, sadly, it is all too common among those who would cloak their metaphysical prejudices with the authority of institutional science or the law.

This is especially unfortunate, because just a moment’s reflection is enough to conclude that it is untrue true that science must necessarily be limited to the investigation of material causes only. Material causes consist of chance and mechanical necessity (the so called “laws of nature”) or a combination of the two. Yet investigators of the world as far back as Plato have recognized a third type of cause exists – acts by an intelligent agent (i.e., “design”). Experience confirms beyond the slightest doubt that acts by intelligent agents frequently result in empirically observable signs of intelligence. Indeed, if this were not so, we would have to jettison forensics, to cite just one of many examples, from the rubric of “science.”

Just look all around you. The very fact that you are reading this sentence confirms that you are able to distinguish it from noise.

Moreover, ID satisfies all the conditions usually required for scientific inquiry (i.e., observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion):

1. It is based on empirical data: the empirical observation of the process of human design, and specific properties common to human design and biological information (CSI).
2. It is a quantitative and internally consistent model.

3. It is falsifiable: any positive demonstration that CSI can easily be generated by non design mechanisms is a potential falsification of the ID theory.

4. It makes empirically testable and fruitful predictions (see point 4)

 

[blackzeus]

2] No Real Scientists Take Intelligent Design Seriously
Yes, they do. At its core, design theory is simply the systemization of the common sense intuition (discussed in literature at least as far back as Cicero ~ 50 BC) that effects caused by intelligent agents leave unique traces that can be distinguished from effects caused by chance and necessity. ID theorists build on that powerful intuition using the well-established methods and principles of science and mathematics.

ID theorists are qualified scientists, and they take ID very seriously indeed, as may be seen from this list of peer reviewed and peer-edited papers published in the professional literature. Leading edge ID theorists (Michael Behe, William Dembski, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Dr. Jonathan Wells, and Roger Olsen) have been joined by a follow-on wave of credentialed scientists (e.g. Douglas Axe, Guillermo Gonzalez, Albert Voie, John A. Davison, D.W. Snoke, David Berlinski, Scott Minnich, Stephen Meyer, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, H. Saedler, Granville Sewell, David L Abel, Jack T Trevors, Robert Marks, Kurt Dunston and David KY Chiu, etc.) in developing ID ideas.

Moreover, even scientists who oppose ID take it seriously. Some come to this very site and argue over its merits (we know their names) while others feel so threatened by it, they actually set up websites with the sole intent of attacking it in every way possible. How many websites has the NCSE set up to attack alchemy?

We will be the first to acknowledge that ID does not represent the consensus among scientists at this time. But ID represents a paradigm shift against an established and entrenched scientific orthodoxy, and the history of science is replete with examples of scientific orthodoxies that were hostile to (and sometimes even persecuted) revolutionary thinkers. By definition orthodoxies resist change, even change for the better.

The elevation of philosophical materialism over seeking truth on its own terms is a major reason that a consensus of scientists rejects ID, and why some even go so far as to “expel” ID theorists from their jobs. Therefore, the frequently encountered dismissal of ID practitioners is not so much driven by a fair assessment of the actual quality of their work in light of the best practice methods and principles of science. Instead, it is a manifestation the “No true[URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman'] Scotsman” fallacy.
At the end of the day, however, it does not matter if most other scientists object to ID, because science is not settled by majority vote. The history of science makes it abundantly clear that today’s consensus is often tomorrow’s exploded theory, and in the end, scientific ideas stand or fall based on their own merits.

And, that – to be judged on its merits – is all ID asks for.
[/URL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

[blackzeus]

3] Intelligent Design does not carry out or publish scientific research
In the Dover case Judge Jones asserted that ID does not carry out or publish scientific research. He was simply wrong. Despite opposition and harassment, there is a significant and growing body of ID-supportive research and peer-reviewed scientific publications. For instance, the Discovery Institute maintains a list of such research-based publications here.

It is also important to remember that biological research, when properly done, is an impartial search for true data and explanations about our world based on empirical evidence. Findings from such research are not “owned” by Darwinists or IDists. Good scientific research is good scientific research, period. Even if the researcher has a specific conviction (either for or against ID), his data are the property of the whole scientific community and can be legitimately evaluated and interpreted by all. In that sense, all biological research is ID research (or, if you want, Darwinist research).

For example Michael Behe, when asked what type of research would help prove his thesis as outlined in the Edge of Evolution, pointed to the research of Lenski at Michigan State on bacteria evolution. Lenski would undoubtedly cringe if he knew he was doing ID research, but ID research he is doing. Each generation of data for every culture line tests (and thereby possibly falsifies) Behe’s thesis. Lenski does not call his research ID research but it is nevertheless consistent with ID objectives and theory.

 

[blackzeus]

4] ID does not make scientifically fruitful predictions.
Again, simply false. As just one example of a successful ID-based prediction:

Non-functionality of “junk DNA” was predicted by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980), Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions.

By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

These Intelligent Design predictions are being confirmed. e.g., ENCODE’s June 2007 results show substantial functionality across the genome in such “junk” DNA regions, including pseudogenes.

In short, it is a matter of simple fact that scientists working in the ID paradigm – despite harassment, slander and even outright career-busting — carry out and publish research, and that they have made significant and successful ID-based predictions.

A similar, but more general and long term prediction of ID is that the real complexity of living beings will be shown to be much higher than currently thought. That kind of “prediction” has been constantly verified in the last few decades, and we can easily anticipate, in an ID scenario, that such a process will go on for a long time. We quote here from a recent post by Gil Dodgen on UD (with minor editing):

“With the aid of improved technology, the formerly fuzzy [appearances of design] of biology (Darwin’s blobs of gelatinous combinations of carbon) are not becoming fuzzier and more easily explained by non-ID theses — they are now known to be high-tech information processing systems, with superbly functionally integrated machinery, error-correction-and-repair systems, and much more that surpasses the most sophisticated efforts of the best human mathematicians, mechanical, electrical, chemical, and software engineers.”

And such a process is going on daily, and at an ever increasing rate, making non-ID explanations daily more unlikely.

 

[blackzeus]

5] Intelligent Design is “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo”
In fact, the two theories are radically different. Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based.

Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. We notice the “forward” approach in Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Anselm. Augustine described it best with the phrase, “faith seeking understanding.” With these thinkers, the investigation was faith-based. By contrast, we discover the “backward” orientation in Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley. Aristotle’s argument, which begins with “motion in nature” and reasons BACK to a “prime mover” — i.e. from effect to its “best” causal explanation — is obviously empirically based.

To say then, that Tertullian, Augustine, Anselm (Creationism) is similar to Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley (ID) is equivalent to saying forward equals backward. What could be more illogical?

 

[blackzeus]

6] Since Intelligent Design Proponents Believe in a “Designer” or “Creator” They Can Be Called “Creationists”
First, a basic fact: while many intelligent design proponents believe in a Creator (which is their world-view right), not all do. Some hold that some immanent principle or law in nature could design the universe. That is: to believe in intelligent design is not necessarily to believe in a transcendent creative being.

However, what is rhetorically significant is the further fact that the term “creationist” is very often used today in a derogatory way.

Traditionally, the word was used to describe the world view that God created the universe, a belief shared by many ID scientists, and even some ID critics. But now, that same term is too often used dishonestly in an attempt to associate intelligent design, an empirically-based methodology, with Creationism, a faith-based methodology.

Some Darwinist advocates and some theistic evolutionists seem to feel that if they can tag ID with the “Creationist” label often enough and thus keep the focus away from science–if they can create the false impression that ID allows religious bias to “leak” into its methodology–if they can characterize it as a religious presupposition rather than a design inference –then the press and the public will eventually come to believe that ID is not really science at all.

In short, anti-ID ideologues use the word “creationist” to distract from a scientific debate that they cannot win on the merits. The only real question is whether someone who uses this dubious strategy is doing so out of ignorance (having been taken in by it, too) or out of malice.

 

[blackzeus]

7] Because William Dembski once commented that the design patterns in nature are consistent with the “logos theology” of the Bible, he unwittingly exposed his intentions to do religion in the name of science
In general, personal beliefs and personal views about the general nature of reality (be they religious, atheistic, or of any kind) should not be considered directly relevant to what scientists say and do in their specific scientific work: that’s a very simple rule of intellectual respect and democracy, and it simply means that nobody can impose a specific model of reality on others, and on science itself.

Moreover, Dembski is qualified as a theologian and a philospher-scientist-mathematician (one of a long and distinguished tradition), so he has a perfect right to comment seriously on intelligent design from both perspectives.

Further to this, the quote in question comes from a theologically oriented book in which Dembski explores the “theological implications” of the science of intelligent design. Such theological reframing of a scientific theory and/or its implications is not the same thing as the theory itself, even though each may be logically consistent with the other. Dembski’s point, of course, was that truth is unified, so we shouldn’t be surprised that theological truths confirm scientific truths and vice versa.

Also, Dembski’s reference to John 1:1 ff. underscores how a worldview level or theological claim may have empirical implications, and is thus subject to empirical test.

For, in that text, the aged Apostle John put into the heart of foundational era Christian thought, the idea that Creation is premised on Rational Mind and Intelligent Communication/Information. Now, after nineteen centuries, we see that — per empirical observation — we evidently do live in a cosmos that exhibits fine-tumed, function-specifying complex information as a premise of facilitating life, and cell-based life is also based on such functional, complex, and specific information, e.g in DNA.

Thus, theological truth claims here line up with subsequent empirical investigation:a risky empirical prediction has been confirmed by the evidence. (Of course, had it been otherwise – and per track record — many of the same critics would have pounced on the “scientific facts” as a disconfirmation. So, why then is it suddently illegitimate for Christians to point out from scientific evidence, that on this point their faith has passed a significant empirical test?)

 

[blackzeus]

8] Intelligent Design is an attempt by the Religious Right to establish a Theocracy
Darwinist advocates often like to single out the “Discovery Institute” as their prime target for this charge. It is, of course, beyond ridiculous.

In fact, all members from that organization and all prominent ID spokespersons embrace the American Founders’ principle of representative democracy. All agree that civil liberties are grounded in religious “principles” (on which the framers built the republic) not religious “laws” (which they risked their lives to avoid), and support the proposition that Church and State should never become one.

However, anti-ID zealots too often tend to misrepresent the political issues at stake and distort the original intent, spirit, and letter of the founding documents.

Historically, the relationship between Church and State was characterized not as a “union” (religious theocracy) or a radical separation (secular tyranny) but rather as an “intersection,” a mutual co-existence that would allow each to express itself fully without any undue interference from the other. There was no separation of God from government. On the contrary, everyone understood that freedom follows from the principle that the Creator God grants “unalienable rights,” a point that is explicit in the US Declaration of Independence. Many Darwinists are hostile to such an explicitly Creation-anchored and declaratively “self-evident” foundation for liberty and too often then misunderstand or pervert its historical context – the concept and practice of covenantal nationhood and just Government under God. Then, it becomes very tempting to take the cheap way out: (i) evade the responsibility of making their scientific case, (ii) change the subject to politics, (iii) pretend to a superior knowledge of the history, and (iv) accuse the other side of attempting to establish a “theocracy.”

In fact, design thinking is incompatible with theocratic principles, a point that is often lost on those who don’t understand it.

Jefferson and his colleagues — all design thinkers — argued that nature is designed, and part of that design reflects the “natural moral law,” which is observed in nature and written in the human heart as “conscience.” Without it, there is no reasonable standard for informing the civil law or any moral code for defining responsible citizenship. For, the founders held that (by virtue of the Mind and Conscience placed within by our common Creator) humans can in principle know the core ideas that distinguish right from wrong without blindly appealing to any religious text or hierarchy. They therefore claimed that the relationship between basic rights and responsibilities regarding life, liberty and fulfillment of one’s potential as a person is intuitively clear. Indeed, to deny these principles leads into a morass of self-contradictions and blatant self-serving hypocrisies; which is just what “self-evident” means.

So, as a member of a community, each citizen is should follow his conscience and traditions in light of such self-evident moral truth; s/he therefore deserves to be free from any tyranny or theocracy that which would frustrate such pursuit of virtue. By that standard, religious believers are permitted and even obliged to publicly promote their values for the common good; so long as they understand that believers (and unbelievers) who hold other traditions or worldviews may do the same.

Many Darwinists, however, confuse civil laws that are derived from religious principles and from the natural moral law (representative democracy) with religious laws (autocratic theocracy). So, they are reduced to arguing that freedom is based on a murky notion of “reason,” which, for them, means anti-religion. Then, disavowing the existence of moral laws, natural rights, or objectively grounded consciences, they can provide no successful rational justification for the basic right to free expression; which easily explains why they tend to support it for only those who agree with their point of view. Sadly, they then too often push for — and often succeed in — establishing civil laws that de-legitimize those very same religious principles that are the historic foundation for their right to advocate their cause. Thus, they end up in precisely the morass of agenda-serving self-referential inconsistencies and abuses that the founders of the American Republic foresaw.

So, it is no surprise that, as a matter of painfully repeated fact, such zealots will then typically “expel” and/or slander any scientist or educator who challenges their failed paradigm or questions its materialistic foundations. That is why for instance, Lewontin publicly stated:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [Bold emphasis added]

The point of all this should be clear. ID does not seek to establish a theocracy; it simply wants to disestablish a growing Darwinist tyranny.

 

[blackzeus]

9] “Evolution” Proves that Intelligent Design is Wrong
The word “evolution” can mean different things. The simplest meaning is one of natural history of the appearance of different living forms. A stronger meaning implies common descent, in its universal form (all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor) or in partial form (particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor). “Evolution” is often defined as descent with modifications, or simply as changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.

None of those definitions can prove ID wrong, because none are in any way incompatible with it.

ID is a theory about the cause of genetic information, not about the modalities or the natural history of its appearance, and is in no way incompatible with many well known patterns of limited modification of that information usually defined as “microevolution.” ID affirms that design is the cause, or at least a main cause, of complex biological information. A theory which would indeed be alternative to ID, and therefore could prove it wrong, is any empirically well-supported “causal theory” which excludes design; in other words any theory that fits well with the evidence and could explain the presence or emergence of complex biological information through chance, necessity, any mix of the two, or any other scenario which does not include design. However, once we rule out “just-so stories” and the like, we will see that there is not today, nor has there ever been, such a theory. Furthermore, the only empirically well-supported source of functionally specific, complex information is: intelligence.

To sum it up: no definition of evolution is really incompatible with an ID scenario. Any causal theory of evolution which does not include design is obviously alternative to, and incompatible with, ID.

However, while many such theories have indeed been proposed, they are consistently wanting in the necessary degree of empirical support. By contrast, design is an empirically known source of the class of information – complex, specified information (CSI) — exhibited by complex biological systems.