Community

quote:

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. 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.

quote:

Atheists see ID as a covert attempt at replacing evolution with theism. When I first heard of ID I perceived it to be just a new label on theistic evolution.
Now that I have had time to investigate ID I realize it is neither. I now see ID as a scientific endeavor to provide empirical evidence that intelligence is required for life to exist. It is entirely compatible with evolution so it cannot be an "alternative" to evolution".
Any comments?

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

[ID] is entirely compatible with evolution so it cannot be an "alternative" to evolution".
Any comments?

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

Atheists see ID as a covert attempt at replacing evolution with theism. When I first heard of ID I perceived it to be just a new label on theistic evolution.
Now that I have had time to investigate ID I realize it is neither. I now see ID as a scientific endeavor to provide empirical evidence that intelligence is required for life to exist. It is entirely compatible with evolution so it cannot be an "alternative" to evolution".
Any comments?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Interestingly, I think the two primary differences between ID and theistic evolution is that TE is actually a theological position, not a scientific one - and theistic evolution says that while God exists, there is no evidence of His activity in the development of biology, that is, biological development can be explained completely by unguided activites.

quote:

I think there are a broad range of view within theistic evolution. In that framework, God is thought to have 'directed' evolution, probably with mankind as the teleological endpoint. But how active is God's direction? On the deist end of the spectrum, God could have wound up his clockwork universe 'knowing' that evolution would follow the path he wanted without any further interference. On the active end, God could have acted innumerable times to make sure that this gene mutated here, or that gene's frequency increased or decreased, or maybe even to actively insert a gene or set of genes that somehow couldn't have evolved, as ID asserts. So theistic evolution is not necessarily completely unguided.

quote:

As a hypothesis, the Discovery Institute notwithstanding as it really has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion, but in terms of the actual tenets of ID itself, I think you are mostly right. ID is really a very limited idea which focuses specifically on identifying the causes that bring into existence certain structures and systems.

quote:

I think the Discovery Institute is relevant to this discussion, because they are both the creators and primary supporters of the ID movement. All of the founders and main proponents of this idea—Behe, Johnson, Dembski, and so on—are part of the Discovery Institute. How can Intelligent Design be defined other than the definition used by its creators and supporters?

quote:

It's no more relevant to this discussion than the fact that Dawkins uses evolution to advocate for atheism; obviously evolution can be understood with no reference to atheism, so the two are not inexoriably connected. One can understand the tenets of ID and accept them, and not have any interest in creating a 'Christian paradigm'; indeed, there are Jews, Muslims, Deists, and agnostics who argue for ID, so obviously it isn't intrinsically a Christian paradigm.

quote:

You aren’t addressing my point. What Dawkins says doesn’t represent evolution as a whole, because Dawkins isn’t anything close to the only person responsible for that theory. The Discovery Institute, on the other hand, is completely responsible for Intelligent Design’s existence as a hypothesis, as well as its continued support. The only thing equivalent to this in the case of evolution is Darwin’s explanation of it, as far as what represented evolution in the 1860s—the theory of evolution has been altered considerably since then, so it can no longer be considered to be defined by Darwin’s explanation of it, but in the 1860s the theory of evolution was Darwin’s idea, so there was no other authority in existence about what his theory stated.

quote:

This is really scary. I think I actually agree with you, unc.

quote:

Actually, there are others not associated with the Discovery Institute who have written about ID; Mike Gene's The Design Matrix being one example. In fact others long before Behe or Dembski wrote suggested the ideas that form ID and influence them - Michale Denton being one, the book the The Mystery of Life's Origin written in 1984 by Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen being another.

So one can consider the tenets of ID and have no association with the Discovery Institute, and that is how it should be discussed here.

quote:

This is the way it currently is for Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute. As the only people responsible for this theory (unlike the way it is for Dawkins and evolution), they are the only people who can define it.

quote:

By that argument all arguments about Evolution should only have their basis in what Darwin says and not what people since have said about and expanded on what Darwin said.

quote:

If there were as many people outside the Discovery Institute contributing to ID as there are people who have contributed to evolution after Darwin, I’d agree with you about this. But even now, the only people outside the Discovery Institute contributing to it are people like Mike Gene whom I’m pretty sure Jhud doesn’t agree with.

The difference between ID and evolution in this respect is that evolution isn’t any single group’s idea anymore; it’s very much a community effort. But ID is the exact opposite of this.

quote:

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

Michael Denton is affiliated with the Discovery Institute; he just tries to distance himself from it (which they aren’t cooperating with.) The fact that his most famous book was published before the Discovery Institute existed isn’t relevant, since my point is only that the Discovery Institute currently encapsulates all of the supporters of this hypothesis, past and present.

Mike Gene’s book The Design Matrix does not support ID the way you define it, since Gene makes it very clear in that book that he thinks ID is not science and therefore should not be taught in public schools. Or is this what you think also? You’ve said that in this thread you only wish to consider ID inasmuch as it isn’t affiliated with the Discovery Institute, and Mike Gene is the only example you’ve given of of an ID supporter who isn’t. Does that mean his opinion about this is the one you agree with; that Intelligent Design is not science?

quote:

First off, it doesn't matter how much I agree with Mike Gene; what matters is that his existence proves your thesis wrong; and as evolution is 150 years old we would expect a few more people to be involved. But it wasn’t always that way, and there was plenty of advocacy and propagandizing at evolution's inception as there has been for any other idea that has taken hold. It wasn't all about science.

quote:

You aren’t addressing my point.

quote:

Nor are you addressing the point of the OP. This thread is about the compatibility of ID with evolution.
If you want to bash the Discovery Institute start a thread for that purpose.