This is actually a pretty good question and one that doesn’t have a simple answer. There are as many thoughts about ID as there are people. That’s a fortunate thing because the ID proponents can then argue whatever points they want and change them as they need to without actually stopping arguing about ID.
So let’s take a look at what ID is.For example, I ‘know’ several pro-ID people. One says that ID is not anti-evolution, and that ID does provide evidence. Yet he continually fails to mention what that evidence is. I believe he also accepts ‘micro-evolution’ [1]. He also believes that ID is not religious. A second proponent says that ID encompasses everything in the universe and creation of the universe. He specifically states that everything that happens is directly (not indirectly) due to an intelligent designer (that must be a deity for logical reasons). The third, unequivocally states that natural processes are fine for everything, except the origin of life on Earth and the origin of intelligent life on Earth. Which puts him at odds with number 2. Surprisingly, they refuse to engage each other on their respective views of ID.
So, when discussing Intelligent Design, I do not rely on these individuals commentary about ID. I reply specifically on what the leaders of the ID movement say. These are the people who invented the modern, biochemical, version of ID and I’ll go with them. Let’s just see what they say, in their own words:
“The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to
clear obstacles that prevent people from coming
to the knowledge of Christ,” Dembski said. “And if
there’s anything that I think has blocked the
growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit
and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus
Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view…. It’s
important that we understand the world. God has
created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world.”
William Dembski quoted, Benen, Steve, “The Discovery
Institute”, Church and State Magazine, May 2002.
Hmmm… that sounds pretty anti-evolution to me. I’ll point out that for those not up on the current state of affairs, Dr. William Dembski is a professor at Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary. He’s a professor of philosophy and has a degree in mathematics, and I believe, in theology.
“If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of
Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully
human and fully divine) and view Christ as the
telos toward which God is drawing the whole of
creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves
Christ out of the picture must be seen as
fundamentally deficient.”
– William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between
Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press,
1999.
So, God is it and if science says something that is different than what God says, then science is wrong.
One last quote from Dembski:
That’s it. And that simple statement means that ID is not allowed to be taught without violating the First Amendment. You see, ID isn’t just any deity, it is specifically Judeo-Christian religion.
Let’s see what some others have said:
“The absence of God is a necessary
presupposition of Darwinism.”
– Interview with Phillip Johnson about The Wedge of Truth,
Christianbook.com, August 14, 2000.
And yet, in no textbook or dictionary that I have, does evolution (or Darwinism[2]) say “there is no God”. Phillip Johnson appears to have backed out of the lime-light of creationism. He was a big deal in the 80s and 90s and had some major influence on the creationist movements.
Michael Behe is an interesting character. He’s one of the few actual scientists in the Intelligent Design movement. He works in biochemistry and has tenure at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania (and the rest of his department have all signed a letter that basically says they disagree with him and please don’t judge Lehigh on Behe.)
Behe is probably best known in the intelligent design/creation area as the guy that screwed the pooch at Dover. Under oath he admitted the following at the Dover trial:
- That no peer-reviewedscientific journal has published research supportive of intelligent design’s claims.
- That intelligent design seems plausible and reasonable to inquirers in direct proportion to their belief or nonbelief in God.
- That the basic arguments for evidence of purposeful design in nature are essentially the same as those adduced by the Christian apologist Rev. William Paley (1743–1805) in his 1802 Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected From the Appearances of Nature, where he sums up his observations of the complexity of life in the ringing words, “The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD.”[4]
- That the definition of “theory” supplied by the US National Academy of Sciences: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”, was insufficiently broad to encompass ID. Use of his broader definition of the word would allow astrology to be included as a scientific theory.
You can read the entire transcript of the Dover trial here. I suggest you pay special attention to the Behe cross-examination and the Barbara Forrest direct examination. So, we have positive support for ID as religion. We have ID changing science so as to encompass astrology. And, most importantly, we have the simple fact that there is no positive evidence for Intelligent Design.
Now for the big one. The Wedge Document. This is the ‘manifesto’ for the ID movement. It’s a five year plan (which ought make even a casual student of history a little wary) that calls for some interesting things. The link above takes you to the document. Let’s see what it says.
The very first sentence is:
The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
Well, that’s not very subtle is it?
Later on we read:
Discovery Institutes’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.
Nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. I wonder, does that include vaccines, computers, cars, etc?
From the Five Year Plan Strategic Summary:
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Intelligent Design will replace science with Christianity. Can’t get more unambiguous than that.
Governing Goals
- To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
- To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals
- To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
- To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
- To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals
- To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
- To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
- To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
So that’s it. The goals of the Intelligent Design movement include, for all intents and purposes making a theocracy.
Dr. Paul Nelson has said that ID is way behind on the research (essentially none), but I can’t find the quote right now.
Finally, I’m going to recommend a book by Dr. Barbara Forrest. Creationism’s Trojan Horse. Part of this book was damning testimony in the Dover trial.
What have we learned?
We have learned that ID is religious, specifically Christian. We have learned that ID has no research program. And we have learned that the leading proponents of ID all say that ID is religion and anti-science (including evolution).
I think that takes care of it, don’t you?
____________________________________________________
[1] I put micro-evolution in quotes, but I am not a fan of the distinction between micro- and macro- evolution. I maintain that it is a continuum and not easily separated into two distinct categories. There is some basis for the classification, I admit. I just don’t like using it and the main reason for that is because it is a constant avenue of attack of anti-science forces.
[2] Darwinism is a strange phrase that I have only heard from ID-proponents and creationists. I think that by making Darwin an ‘-ism’ they think that they are making science more religion like (to better attack it in the courts). This is beyond silly. For one thing, Darwin didn’t know about all the things we know now. His theory has been extended and expanded in ways Darwin couldn’t even begin to imagine.
Cassandra's Tears 
Can’t be talking about me because I have presented the positive evidence for ID and I will engage any IDist and talk about ID.
Intelligent Design is Not anti-evolution, and here also.
Also ID isn’t religious- it says nothing about the designer(s), nothing about worship and nothing about giving service to. The designer(s) need not be able to grant salvation and death may be all there is.
John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:
Hmmm…
And one more for Ogre the conspiracy theorist nutjob:
The “wedge” document, so what?
and one more:
What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?– a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design.
That is the sort of information evotards don’t want people to understand.
Since the Human Genome Project was completed some 10 years ago we have discovered that only about 20,000-25,000 genes encode 100,000-200,000 proteins.
We have discovered two mechanisms that make this so- alternative gene splicing- in which introns are removed and exons spliced back together in different packages producing different proteins from the same gene- editting and splicing, evidence for design.
We have alo discovered overlapping genes- that is one gene actually being two or more genes.
That means there has to be a start codon and stop codon for each gene along the same sequence. And the intermediate sequencing has to correlate to amino acids.
Have you even tried to make more than one complex sentence out of a given complex sentence just by shifting your starting point to the right or left?
Can you think of what planning and foresight is required to accomplish such a feat? Think about it, genes have only one start codon.
“Michael Behe is an interesting character. He’s one of the few actual scientists in the Intelligent Design movement. He works in biochemistry and has tenure at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania (and the rest of his department have all signed a letter that basically says they disagree with him and please don’t judge Lehigh on Behe.)”
It would be more accurate to call it the Magic movement.
The biology department of Lehigh University has a good reason to be ashamed of Behe, a pathological liar for Jeebus. They say “please don’t judge Lehigh on Behe” but still any intelligent student is not likely to go anywhere near a university that has a science denier who teaches science.
http://darwinkilledgod.blogspot.com/
My opening comment is still awaiting moderation- I think I used one or two words that are not acceptable to Ogre.
I visited Joe G’s anti-science pro-magic website and I wrote this comment there:
Everyone knows “intelligent design” are fancy code words that dishonest Christians use when they really mean “The Magic Man did it.”
You invoke magic to solve scientific problems and you call biologists “EvoTards”. Why are you afraid of biology?
ID FAQ from ARN
ID FAQ from the DI
John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:
Hmmm…
Hi Human Ape- obviously you are confused. Do you think computer designers use magic? OTOH your position relies on magical mystery mutations.
Go figure…
I also wrote this comment for the professional-liar-for-Jeebus:
Elsewhere on your blog you wrote “I happen to know that ID does not require a belief in ‘God’.”
OK. Then can you please answer this simple question:
Who is the designer?
I will not be impressed if you say “It doesn’t matter” or “I don’t know” or “Maybe it was an alien”.
Can you answer my question honestly? I doubt it.
One more thing. Biologists never invoke a god or a designer or any other magician. That’s the difference between science and your pseudo-science.
Your comparison doesn’t work because computers are not magically created out of nothing. Your designer, also known as God, creates stuff out of nothing.
Why are you so terrified of reality? Are you worried you will make Jeebus cry if you ever grow up?
Joe G, if intelligent design wasn’t identical to magical creationism it would be so obvious you would never have to spend so much time denying it. I noticed biologists never have to deny evolution is creationism. Perhaps that’s because biologists never invoke magic like you do.
I will repeat, Joe. You are not the ID movement. You do not represent the ID movement.
You have your own ideas about ID and that’s fine, but you have published no books and no papers about ID.
Dembski arguably invented the modern ID movement (stealing the concept from Paley). Meyer was the guy in charge of the Wedge Document. Behe and Wells are other prominent and prolific writers and promoters of the ID movement.
I’m just repeating what they said. If you don’t like it, then I suggest you take it up with them. Please explain to Dembski how he doesn’t know what ID is.
Describe it for us. In your explanation be sure to explain that even though termites are not intelligent, they can design structures that vary depending on terrain, materials, and orientation, and then explain why an intelligent agent is required.
Poof, the magic Mutant (to the tune “Puff the Magic Dragon”)
Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be.
Little Richard Dawkins, loved that rascal Poof.
And wrote him books to appease the kooks, oh what a silly goof!
Oh Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be
Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be
Together they would mutate Poof into a beluga whale
Richard kept a spectroscope trained on Poof’s mutating tail.
Nobel things and atheists bowed whene’er they came
Scientists would lower their flasks when Poof mutated a mane
Oh Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be
Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be
Mutations can’t go on forever, just like little boys
Antennaed wings and giant things doom nature’s mutant ploys
One gray night it happened, natural selection said no more
And Poof that Magic Mutant, mutated one last roar
His head was bent in sorrow, his tears fell like rain
Richard no longer went to write it gave him so much pain
Without his life-long friend Dick could not be brave
So Dick that evo-poofer sadly slipped in to his cave
Oh Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be
Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be
(repeat chorus and fade…)
I have presented the positive evidence for ID on my blog. That you refuse to read it reflects on you, not me. And taht you refuse to read it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
As for Meyer, Dembski, Wells, et al., they all agree with me that ID doesn’t have anything to do with religion. Your twisted facts mean nothing to me.
OM:
Because that is what they were designed to do- that is their program- and they are “intelligent” in the way Intelligent Design uses the word. So again you prove that you don’t know what you are talking about.
I will repeat it Ogre- you are clueless and don’t know what you are talking about.
Goodbye Joe. You are not adding to the discussion and you continue to insult me.
I’m not banning you entirely, so if you decide to be a little nicer and present actual evidence beyond base assertion, then I will allow the comments.
Joe is a nobody in the ID world – the theocrats listed in the OP are the forces behind ID. Joe is so ostracized he has to invent new personas to comment on ID blogs that have expelled him.
“As for Meyer, Dembski, Wells, et al., they all agree with me that ID doesn’t have anything to do with religion.”
Patently untrue as clearly demonstrated in the OP.
He writes “ID doesn’t have anything to do with religion” while completely ignoring the “Who is the designer?” question I asked.
Magical Intelligent Design Creationism is identical to Magical Bible Creationism. Same supernatural designer, same magic wand. The name change was nothing more than a pathetic and failed attempt to force biology teachers to teach Genesis, as if they would ever agree to lie to their students, and as if that lesson could last longer than it takes to say god-did-it.
HA, on the depressing side, most biology teachers do not teach evolution. Most of those that do just give a cursory examination (a day, maybe 2) and move on.
There are a number of biology teachers that do not teach evolution and instead teach creationism, illegally with the tactic approval of parents and administrators. Freshwater probably would still be teaching creationism if he had burned kids with a Tesla coil.
“The Design Revolution”, page 25, Dembski writes:
He goes on to say:
Which just says that Dembski says what he thinks his audience wants to hear. When speaking to churches (what scientist speaks at church groups?) he talks about God. When speaking to politicians and science types, he speaks like you mentioned.
This is not the mark of a professional. This is the mark of a two-faced con-man.
I want Joe G to tell us the scientific hypothesis of ID and follow that with the peer reviewed research being done to support that hypothesis. 🙂
If Joe will do so, then I will approve the comment. Links required.
I want evolutionists to tell us the scientific hypothesis for their position and follow that with the peer reviewed research being done to support that hypothesis.
But that ain’t happenin’…
Joe. Nice attempt to redirect and confuse this issue. Repeat after me, “This has nothing to do with evolution.” This article is 100% about Intelligent Design. Evolution and everything else is something completely different.
Now, can you determine a designed from a non-designed thing? yes or no
Can you explain why intelligence is required for the designed thing? Oh wait, nevermind, you’ve already admitted that intelligence is not required for design. So, why do you require an intelligent designer? Explain in detail why evolution can’t be the designer.
Unfortunately for you it has everything to do with the blind, watchmaker, ie chance and necessity. Ya see Ogre the design inference has two parts- one is eliminating chance and necessity.
Also by asking for a testable hypothesis along with the supporting science is so I understand your standards. So until you ante up don’t ask me to. That is only fair.
People do it on a daily basis, so that would be a yes.
Agency = intelligence according to ID’s claims.
What does that even mean? Evolution is a result.
Last time I will tell you Joe and the last comment we will make about this. It is up to the pro-ID people to support ID. It is not my job to defend evolution or do your work for you.
If you can determine a designed thing from a non-designed thing, then do so. There are two sequences. Prove you can do it. I maintain that it is impossible, even in theory to do. Show I’m wrong.
It’s time to put up or shut up.
Agency = non-intelligent according to you (unless you believe termites to be intelligent)
Evolution is a process. Speciation is a result. At least have the courtesy to understand the things you are arguing against. I maintain that even if you can tell the difference between design and non-design (which you can’t), there is still no requirement that the designer be an ‘intelligent agent’. That requirement is not actually listed in the notions of ID theory.
Sure, they ‘say’ that intelligence best explains design, but they don’t say why or why intelligence is required. By your own admission, non-intelligent agents (termites) can generate design.
Last chance Joe. Do the work or go away.
Again termites are intelligent in the way ID uses the word.
No, it isn’t, evolution is the result of (random) mutations/ genetic changes accumulating over time. There are many evolutionary processes.
Are you saying that forensic science and archaeology are pure bullshit?
I support ID on my blog.
Everyone is welcome there. But you have to be prepared to support your position. That, stay on-topic and contribute to the discussion are my rules.
As usual, ID redefines words to mean what they want.
You heard it here first. Termites ARE intelligent.
The rest is vacuous nothing. Joe still hasn’t even attempted to show how, even in principle,it would be possible to determine whether the two genes I presented are designed or not. Everything else he has said is wrong.
Obviously, forensics and archeology knows who the designer is and we can, therefore, make assumptions about what can and cannot be done. Obviously a 7000 year-old Ford would be something that would cast doubt on our knowledge of archeology.
ID refuses to even discuss the designer, so anything is possible.
Yes, evolution is many processes and they all result in a single process that is called evolution, which, simply, is a change in the frequency of a gene in a population.
I think we’re done here. Joe, you are welcome to continue to not answer my challenge on your own blog.
So living organisms evolved by the process of evolution? Are you serious?
Charles Darwin said that evolution is the result of a process he called natural selection.
Who should I believe?
Don’t worry all this is going into another post on my blog as I am pretty sure you won’t post it.
I’m sorry Joe. I’m sorry that you have such a limited understanding of evolution and the processes that make it up. I’m sorry, but you continually attack strawmen without defending your own arguments.
Charles Darwin was 150 years ago dude. If you think we haven’t moved beyond his work, you are sadly mistaken.
Again, I know I told you this at least twice. Your comments will be approved provided you at least pretend to be polite. I’d prefer that you support your statements, but I know better.
Joey started with an interesting statement about overlapping genes in humans – can you please point me to more information about that? We’ve known about overlapping genes for some time in phages under intense selective pressure to maintain minimum genome size. The only eukaryotic ‘overlapping’ genes I’ve heard about though are ones with multiple promoters – essentially alternative splicing that starts with transcription, in which the transcript from one promoter has more exons in the primary transcript than the primary transcript from another promoter. This seems very different than one region of DNA encoding proteins in distinct reading frames, which is what Joey seemed to be suggesting.
Also, I assume that it isn’t possible that literate people trying to understand evolution haven’t heard of the field of directed protein evolution – for example – http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/content/short/69/3/373 – which clearly shows that complex information and novel functions can arise from random mutation coupled with selection. Because this kind of approach has been around since the ’70s, people claiming that mutation/selection can’t create novelties can be assumed to be willfully lying – “bearing false witness” as it were.
But this leads to an interesting point. Protein engineers have used completely random mutations and assemblies in some cases, and in other cases they have used numerous specific design components. Both approaches have resulted in successfully producing novel proteins – but is there any way we might be able to distinguish between the two products? That is, can anyone devise a test that could distinguish an intelligently designed protein from one that was engineered by random mutation coupled with artificial selection?
Mark, well that’s it exactly.
I maintain (and I think I’m right) that it is impossible, even in theory, to distinguish a random sequence of nucleotides from a designed sequence of nucleotides. You can’t go with a frequency count to determine random because different organism, even different genes have differing ratios of nucleotides and some are the same as a 25/25/25/25 that a random sequence should generate.
So, as far as I know there is nothing in that area. Unfortunately, that’s the area that ID says it can do. Of course, as soon as we mention a test of this, they start in on ‘functional’ and dismiss random sequences as not important to ID (see JoeGs comments in this and other threads).
The only actual test of ID would be to have an ID proponent correctly identify the non-random sequence all of the time.
Pingback: 2011 Texas Intelligent Design Bill – HB 2454 | Cassandra's Tears
Pingback: Questions for Intelligent Designers | Cassandra's Tears