It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The theory of '''Intelligent Design''' (I.D.) is a modernized and reformed adaptation of [[Creationism]]. The main difference between the two is I.D. is, some say purposefully, very ambiguous and cautious when addressing the identity of the "Intelligent Designer." Most of I.D.'s proponents imply that the Designer was a nonspecific deity or supernatural force, careful not to label it "God" or any other title that illicits a connection to a certain faith. In Creatonism, believers accept the Christian God as the Creator.
A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design Johnathan Witt (.pdf)
Critics of the theory of intelligent design often assert that it is simply a repackaged version of creationism, and that it began after the Supreme Court struck down the teaching of creationism in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. In reality, the idea of intelligent design reaches back to Socrates and Plato, and the term “intelligent design” as an alternative to blind evolution was used as early as 1897. More recently, discoveries in physics, astronomy, information theory, biochemistry, genetics, and related disciplines during the past several decades provided the impetus for scientists and philosophers of science to develop modern design theory.
Does ID postulate a 'supernatural creator?' (.pdf)
" [A] scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. Thus while I argue for
design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role
of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some
mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly
unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible
than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the
identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's phrase hypothesis
Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same
1. "Intelligent Design Creationism" is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.
2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.
3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.
4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.
5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.
Intelligent Design theorists are ademant in their defense of the scientific nature and validity of their ideas, eager to use scientific or pseudoscientific wordage and insist ing on the accordantly secular value and scope of their beliefs.
Emerging supporters of I.D. commonly use argument from ignorance, a method of debate or argument wherein any and all unknowns are exploited and exaggerated so as to justify the repudiation of a viewpoint in its entirety. The unknowns in this case are currently unexplained or hypothetical evidence for Evolution, the better known examples being gaps between ancestral species and their modern descendants, the scale and rate of Darwinian random mutations and natural selection, the relatively imperceptible evidence of current evolution, and the intricate workings of cells.
In regard to the explanation offered for the actual act or process of creation, concepts generally fit somewhere among the following:
-The thing responsible is god, who started the entire process, not interfering after this.
-The thing responsible is god, who started the entire process, interfering anywhere from a few to innumerable times throughout.
-The thing responsible is an alien or aliens, who(m) either sent biological matter to earth, or came to earth and placed it here.
Advocates of I.D. focus intensely upon the complexity and esotericism of the human mind, insisting that the intricacies and faculties of it could not have arisen in the way Evolution claims (by natural processes and from the brains of the higher primates). In this respect, Creationists contend that the spirit or soul accounts for the properties of human minds, and being supernatural entities, cannot be studied, rationalized, or perhaps even comprehended by humans.
Critics abound in almost all academic and scholarly institutions and disciplines, as well as secularism. The main arguments against I.D. are the inherent similarities shared by Creationism and Intelligent Design as well as in their audiences, the vagueness of its arguments and reasoning, the irrational nature of both the alien and deity explanations, the totally untestable essence of such explanations, the contradictions and paradoxes created by simultaneous denial of theistic, religious, or otherwise unscientific factors and promotion of a purely scientific, logically deductive system, and the lack of evidence possessed by I.D. scholars.
The general notion among I.D. opponents is that it is a less-than-halfway compromise between dogmatic Creationism and secular science, having at its core the same approximate explanation: "God did it." Taken a step further, this opinion also implies that I.D. precludes analytical, intelligent inquiry, implying that it is a facade painted over Creationism to slip religion into the public arena masked as reasonable science.
This is our (ATS) wiki though... can't be #'in on my lawn. i'll raise a stink.
Originally posted by Vasilis Azoth
Hey man, what can I say, that's Wikipedia. I wouldn't go to that site if you put a gun to my head. For exactly the reasons you cited about that article...