All Intelligent Design is for, just as its predecessor Creationism was for; … to try and debunk evolution. It has been proven by the sciences and upheld by the courts. Does anyone see any intelligence in this clip because I sure don’t???

Intelligent Design Theory   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjsIn7yd2x8

This is all so stupid … the first thing I need to know is (hahaha) … who is the designer of all our marvels? Obviously it couldn’t have been Jesus as we were here long before that time. So who could possibly be intelligent enough to accomplish this wonderment I wonder indeed. Are they talking Kirk and company or what hahaha?

So here is the new twist; Since we don’t believe in god(s) … they just take the “GOD” part out and walla … the theists have no more arguments … hahaha … because “God” has been ‘removed’ from the equation and that was their only complaint … got to love this stuff. Our design is pretty intelligent, but the arguments supporting ID are not.

Where did the the so called philosopher of biology and mathematician get their degrees? Liberty University?

Hahaha I am sure they did. Not sure what else to post here. No one seems interested in rebutting so take that for whatever it is worth, hahaha.

The opponent's? None.

One's own? Rather severe... hard for a corpse to respond during the swearing in ceremony...

We'll have to wait until Michael Moore takes up the cause. He usually puts a decent sarcastic comic spin into the subject matter he deals with.

Though apparently corpses can stand trial and answer for their crimes...just ask Pope Stephen VI!

http://www.cracked.com/article_15648_the-5-biggest-badass-popes.html

In actuality, intelligent design is somewhat of a mental trap. It can really mean two different things;

1) We perceive something to be intelligently designed

and

2) Something was intelligently designed by an intelligent designer

There's too much distance between 1) and 2) in the rhetoric. For example, the video you posted argues point 1. Even the book from the interviewed guy at the end has "chance" as a possibility of intelligent design appearing (of course, they don't mention it). But, for 2) to be true, which is what intelligent design "really is", one must also prove that it WASN'T a result of random acts, that there WAS an intelligent designer. In other words, for intelligent design to be true, one must prove the existence of an intelligent actor. Our perception of whether or not something was intelligently designed is NOT such a proof.

Evolution has already been proven. The evidence is overwhelming. Now, it is up to those who do not believe in it to refute the evidence. And it isn't going to happen through logical fallacies and youtube videos.

For creating a sound argument this is absolutely true, but we have a problem with here...

Quite simply, no...

From an entirely philosophical standpoint, proving that evolution cannot occur randomly is sufficient to proving intelligent design...unless you have a third alternative (something other than scientific laws or an intelligent designer) to how evolution may have occurred, then we are stuck with only two possibilities, and if one of them absolutely is not true, the other possibility must be correct...

Now in practice, completely ruling out science as a possible explanation for evolution is likely impossible...even if science eternally fails to explain evolution, as long as it still has the potential to then we cannot use the failure of science to support intelligent design...

That being said...

Quite simply, no..."overwhelming evidence" does suggest that evolution occurred, but that is not the real point of contention...

We have the process of evolution and the scientific evidence explaining how it occurred, something science has done a great job of developing...but we also have the explanation for why evolution occurred, and science has not completely answered this question...

Suppose we find Jack laying on the ground next to a tree and ladder with his head split open...we can pretty much determine how he died...somehow, the static situation of Jack, the tree, and the ladder was disrupted...Jack progressed to fall following the laws of gravity and kinematics...his head then hit the ground, and knowing what we know about biology and physics, its not so hard to see that hitting his head on the ground could lead to his death...

While there may be other possibilities (aliens could have split his head open, then placed the ladder there to deceive us), the evidence overwhelming suggests that Jack was up on the ladder (or tree) and fell...the proof that evolution did occur may not be 100% perfect but I think trying to argue against it is just plain silly...

In the above example, the evidence indicating how he died thus far has failed to indicate why he died...we know how: gravity, and a soft head...but why Jack fell has yet to be determined...maybe he decided to jump, maybe a ghost scared him, maybe someone pushed him off and then escaped...certainly there could be evidence to suggest why he fell, but it is important to realize there are two separate questions here and overwhelming evidence for answering one does not automatically mean we can answer the other...

For science to explain why evolution occurred, we need more than just an account of "what happened"...we know that molecules chemically interact, and have elaborate theories to explain how those interactions occur...but we also know why chemistry occurs: so particles can move to lower states of energy...

That evolution is possible is obvious, but science is still working on finding the physical laws necessitating or driving biological evolution...personally, I think science will one day find those answers, but until it does intelligent design is just as "silly" as the secular hand-waving used today...

Now I'm just waiting for the inevitable "but natural selection is why evolution occurs"...

I don't understand the difference in asking how evolution happens, and asking why it happens. Can you explain, please? Because to me, those questions are the same. But clearly, you are putting some semantic weight on the words that I am not understanding.

Now, if we were to ask "how did mr X die" and "why did mr X die", that's something I can understand. He died from a blow to the head. Why? He probably fell.

But if you apply the same logic to evolution, I just don't get it. How did evolution happen? Mutations in basic building blocks accumulating over generations leading to natural adaption. Why did it happen? It was a result of existing in this reality where such things happen. There was no purpose to it, it simply occurred randomly. The physical properties of this reality caused it to happen. Either through exogenous factors like radiation, or through the life's own inability to maintain itself.

See? What exactly do you mean when you say "why did evolution happen"? It makes no sense to ask separately. It is like asking "how did the sun rise" and then asking "why did the sun rise" and demanding different answers to those questions.

Seleuceia, I don't know where you got your information from but you are wrong here. We know what forces allow evolution to work. We just lack an adequate lab to recreate the differing conditions ... and of course there is the time thing ... it takes a lot of time this evolution. When you walk out to your car and start it ... do you ever say to yourself geeze ... "I wonder how is started". How many things are there in our complicated lives that we all use daily and never once ask ourselves "WHY" or "HOW". But evolution is somehow different huh??? As far as I know, nobody is asking for overwhelming evidence ... we just want one tiny shred of proof ... how can that be made into requiring overwhelming evidence? So does this put you in limbo then (“intelligent design is just as "silly" as the secular hand-waving used today...”) no beginning at all for us people then, huh?

The only question I have right now is this; "Is ID about God or not". If it isn't then there are some missing explanations ... and if it is, it is just Creationism revisited as the courts ruled.

It is confusing and it is difficult to explain...for the purposes of my argument, how refers to the process of how something occurs, or the method by which it is possible...why is more the driving force, the reason that necessitates the process to occur...

For example, consider chemical reactions...we know how chemistry occurs: atoms share or transfer electrons, bonding them together...but why do atoms do this?  That is, why would atoms want to share/transfer electrons and bond?  The answer to why bonding occurs lies in atomic physics: during a spontaneous chemical reaction (one that happens on their own), atoms move to lower energy configurations...

We have how atoms bond: the process and set of rules dictating how atoms fill their electron shells....then we have why the atoms bond: the universal preference of physical objects to move to lower states of energy...

Let's look at another example, gravity...we know how gravity works: objects with mass attract other objects with mass...these forces are classically explained by Newton's Law of Gravitation and are known to be limited by the speed of light...why gravity exists is not yet known...as of yet, science has yet to determine why exactly objects with mass attract other massive objects...we have the math to explain how gravity affects massive particles, but we don't know why gravity occurs...

How does this apply to evolution?  We have yet to completely describe why evolution occurs...of course, this gets tricky because how and why are in practice interchangeable...

So instead, lets think of it this way:

• There is the process of evolution: species A evolves into species B and C by growing body part X and/or losing body part Y
• There is the driving force behind evolution: species A evolves into species B because of reason X

We have a good idea of what forces probably allow evolution to work, but the theory is not complete...I have no interest in arguing the specifics and the biological science behind all of it, but showing how natural selection leads to the level of transmutation that clearly occurred right now consists of a lot of hand waving...

You or I may not know how a combustion engine works, but mechanical engineers do, and knowing society in general has the answer to that question affects our feelings and beliefs...combustion engines are not "magic" or "mystical", but clearly understood pieces of technology, and that distinction has a lot of meaning we take for granted...

Abiogenesis is an area of research that is seeking to find answers, and while it has many theories other than intelligent design, ultimately the field is unproven science...that is not bad, it simply is a stage that all science was at some point in time...

No...the problem I have with evolution is not the theory itself, but what people make it out to be...secular evolution is often purported as entirely complete, with certain theories regarding abiogenesis framed as "fact" rather than what they are, which is a bunch of unconfirmed theories...

I have full faith that science will eventually have evolution completely (or almost completely) explained...I just am against unconfirmed or incomplete theory being framed as absolute and irrefutable fact, which a lot of people like to do with evolution...

No...but yes...

Intelligent design (when not in a biological context) simply implies the existence of a creator...a murder scene is the product of intelligent design (the victim didn't just die by accident or random chance, but rather someone intentionally killed them)...in biology though, this "creator" would almost have to be a "god" or some sort of supernatural power...this is not the same as Creationism (which is contradicted by science)...intelligent design fully recognizes the occurrence of evolution, but right now it is capitalizing on the fact that biologists haven't polished up the secular theory and plugged all its holes...

A better question I think is the motivation behind the proponents of intelligent design...the overall agenda of its proponents concerns me far more than the theory itself...an argumentative philosopher or scientist playing devil's advocate could certainly argue for the tolerance of intelligent design as a possible explanation for evolution, but that's not who is asking for intelligent design to be taught in classrooms...

Right now there is a state senate bill in Missouri that would require equal classroom time to be dedicated to both evolution and intelligent design...quite a worrisome prospect as far as I'm concerned, I'm just thankful I won't be teaching biology after I graduate...

Well, then if you want to answer why evolution happened, I can do that very easily, as I did above.

The physical properties of this reality caused it to happen. Either through exogenous factors like radiation, or through the life's own inability to maintain itself.

Intelligent design is not a theory of abiogenesis. You are best to do background research on the sources of information that cause you to make such statements.

It is the same. Which part of Genesis do you not understand? Allegory or not various religions interpret that it implies a creator that created everything including life as we know it. You cannot separate intelligent design from religion and in particular the religious doctrine under which it was conceived because it is a religious theory created by believers who are trying to "prove" religious doctrine.

Fortunately that is not how the system generally works at least in this country. Peer review and acceptance of science and the use of the accepted "scientific method" are generally the guidelines used. Unfortunately there are people on school boards who don't see the importance of this, however fortunately many judges still do.

We are not responsible for educating the masses, at least I am not. If people want to believe there are no ‘gaps’ in evolution, they are entitled to be wrong … so I don’t care what misconceptions they have. All one has to do is poke a few buttons and correct their own errors. There is no point of contention here, not in the learned people anyway. The scientific community has made and proven their case to the satisfaction of all but the religious folk, imagine that hahaha. Even the courts have decided that ID is little more that Creationism revisited. These people are trying to get their stuff past the honesty checkpoints built into our scientific system through the public opinion (how scientific is that). How many scientific concepts do you think were gained through ‘popular opinion’?

The scientific journals are ready to accept papers for peer review on anything put to them in writing … we are still waiting… ID is trying to pass itself off as a ‘science’ is it not. Then what is wrong with doing business normally for a change? But just like all things religious … we are just supposed to believe them … and have faith, hehehe. This is just religion doing the only thing it can to get their foot into the door of reason. Every single ID example I have seen has to do with the intelligent designs all accomplished by humanity. Too bad we are so religiously inadequate as to be unable to tell right from wrong … yet we seem to be good at Intelligent Design. They would DARE to compare US to GOD, hahaha, isn’t that blasphemous?

As to the question of how and why … I would think that either answer would provide all the information necessary to answer both … but I think you are splitting straws here too.

Abiogenesis is an area of research that is seeking to find answers to hypothesis that life can come into being from nonliving materials and I don’t think this has anything to do with ID???