Talk:Intelligent design

From EvoWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Anonymous left:

Remark: This Intelligent Design is said to be visible in quite a lot of biochemical or biomechanical apparatus evident in observable non-fossil species, like the chemicals used by the bombardeer beetle, bat wings, ultrasonic radar used by bats, specialist bird lungs, feathers, human eye, etc. Most of these examples are quite hard to explain by gradual evolution, since intermediate steps would not pose as selectable advances for the species or the individual.

On the article page - moving here.

Contents

Slick Design

You can get unfiltered versions of Intelligent Design at

These websites are very slick indeed. After browsing them for a few minutes, I felt the urge to visit a vomatorium.

--Jwalling 20:50, 28 Sep 2004 (BST)

Jwalling, you are obnoxious. So much for letting other people set out their own opinions. You interject this moronic comment; it's opinions like yours that makes me (and possibly others) wonder what the fuss is all about. Then we follow up on our own volition, and maybe even find some valuable information in what the ID movement proposes. Seems to be serving a purpose contrary to your inane comment.

ID Movement as seperate from ID as (pseudo-)science

Should we have a seperate page to discuss the ID movement (ie. funding, Wedge document, history, participants, predictions for the future, it's publishing empire and so on)? I think it would be pretty neat, especially since people like Forrest have published a lot of interesting stuff that we could discuss. --Tommorris 00:22, 27 May 2005 (BST)

Meanings of ID

In the majority of usages, ID relates primarily to the creation of life, and is thus strictly in competition with any of the hypotheses regarding abiogenesis. Contrasting ID with evolution is thus a straw man argument. IDers obviously accept variation within a species; however, some disagree with macroevolution or common descent.

I've removed this paragraph from the page because I don't believe it's accurate. ID seems to be used equally regarding the creation of the universe, the creation of life and the diversification of life. This sentence actually gives the theory of intelligent design more form than its proponents do. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 20:46, 31 Jul 2005 (BST)

Ambiguity of ID

This section is surely wrong? ID is not that ambiguous, it is about the little things that look designed, not just about the origin of life, so surely all ID involved continual manipulation (for addition of each new irreducibly complex struction). That ID only occured in creating the universe and its scientific laws and variables would be theistic evolution, which would be the first one on the list. Joe D (t) 03:22, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

WTF

SERIOSLY guys. This article is totally wrong here. It does not belong into this wiki. It's biased and has bad writing style.It should be "Neutral Point of View" as defined in the wikipedia or locked.

Nevermind. Just noticed that all "evidence for Intelligent design" here is based on circular logic. All evidences are theories defined as vague concepts or "things that can not be explained by evolution". If that is not biased circular logic what is it? --Ollj 21:08, 2 April 2006 (BST)

If you feel that this article is not appropriate for this wiki, please do one of the following: either nominate it for deletion, or make recommendations for improving the article, not deleting chunks that don't suit you willy-nilly, please.--Mr A. 21:15, 2 April 2006 (BST)

I agree.--Ollj 21:30, 2 April 2006 (BST)

On the other hand, if we do delete this article, then what do you propose we do when the visitors to this site want to know what "Intelligent Design" is/supposed to be?--Mr A. 21:39, 2 April 2006 (BST)

(clearified above statements) At least a redirect/merge to/with creationism or a link to CreationWiki. I will see what (falsifiable) arguments I can falsificate. Hopefully this wont be a total waste of time. --Ollj 21:30, 2 April 2006 (BST)

The article needs some cleanup and expansion, that is all. This is not Wikipedia, we do not just describe the controversy in NPOV, we aim to explore the issues in much greater detail, including why intelligent design fails. Joe D (t) 21:52, 2 April 2006 (BST)

Attacks on ID by creationisms

I'm not at all sure where in the structure of EvoWiki the criticisms of ID by creationists should go. I've seen a few, but in the U.S. they've tended to be muted and only on a few of the more radical YEC sites, but free of the worries of the First Amendment, the pure religious creationists run will with ID attack. [5]. A couple of these pages sound just like EvoWiki claims pages:

Allah Does Not Need to Make a Design in Order to Create
"Intelligent Design" Accounts Could Harm Individuals Sincerely Inclined toward Religion
"Intelligent Design" Is Another of Satan's Distractions

At the moment it seems all of the factions of anti-evolution are fairly unified in the U.S. toward supporting any attack, in schools, that might breach science and replace it with even a hint of the supernatural. But it also seems to be a case of "be careful what you wish for". Is there any doubt that Muslims would totally disagree with Christians once it became possible to teach religion in science course.

This is a vulnerability about the ID movement or even any creationism in classes, once you let the supernatural in, whose version of the supernatural will be be! The wedge in reverse. How can the forces of science use the inherent division in the creationist side to get the creationist or religion community to realize that if they ever defeating science or secular government then they'd be at each other's throats. --Dmill96 04:43, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Not really unified. AIG explictly sets itself apart from ID:
"Our friends in the IDM will hopefully understand that when we discuss these problems and issues, we do so not to discourage or obstruct, but simply to make it clear where we are coming from, why we do so, and why we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it."
AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement by Carl Wieland
The ICR is even more overt:
"There is a strong movement among evangelicals today to emphasize "intelligent design" as the argument of choice against naturalism and Darwinian evolution. The movement is also called "mere creation" or "the wedge movement," the idea being to avoid controversial subjects such as the Biblical doctrine of creation in talking to evolutionists. Any discussion of a young earth, six-day creation, a worldwide flood and other Biblical records of early history will turn off scientists and other professionals, they say, so we should simply use the evidence of intelligent design as a "wedge" to pry them loose from their naturalistic premises. Then, later, we can follow up this opening by presenting the gospel, they hope.
"But this approach, even if well-meaning and effectively articulated, will not work! It has often been tried in the past and has failed, and it will fail today. The reason it won't work is because it is not the Biblical method."
Design Is Not Enough! (#127) by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
(Morris seems oblivious that the *cough* Biblical method hasn't really worked for them either. Maybe God doesn't like them as much as they think. They should take the hint.)
In fact, of the Big Three YEC I see constantly referenced by creationists in my debates, only Hovind seems to embrace ID openly. Or at least, his website has a fairly glowing account of it, though he doesn't seem to actually discuss it much in the article. But then, Hovind is the stupidest of the lot. (I can state opinions like that on talk pages, right?) I recall Baugh rejecting ID as well, but can't remember his website and it's past bedtime so I'm not going to hunt it down just now.
As for how to make use of it, we shouldn't have to try hard. The plethora of creationist organizations that exist today is largely the result of existing organizations fracturing over doctrinal differences. Simply put, the only thing creationists hate more EVILutionists is other creationists who don't sprinkle the water quite right or who don't realize that {insert looney theory here} is inherently superior to {insert other looney theory here}. --Suttkus 05:38, 5 April 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Talk:Intelligent_design"
Personal tools