It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Intelligent Design Entry

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   
I don't know who wrote this article or where they got their information from (perhaps I would if it contained any references what-so-ever.) Is the tin-wiki supposed to be an objective (in theory of course) source? Or a place for ATSers to post opinion/speculative theories and ideas.


I'm not sure of the rules regarding editing and posting in TinWiki, so I'll post my suggestions and furthing reading for the author (or whomever) to consider. I did notice the edit feature on the article but, imo, this thing needs to be completely re-written, unless I'm misunderstanding the objective of the tin-wiki. The intelligent design article is certainly not objective or informative... regardless of your position on the subject. At best it's a limp wristed slap at ID, at worst it's just useless empty rhetoric. I'll post my comments here and let me know what you guys think. If these articles need not be objective and/or an accurate (instead just a representation of 'this guy's) take on ID then so be it. Could probably just move it to O&C if that's the case.



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.


-Technically if you want to play the role of the typical critic you'd put "theory" in quotes and not ID. I love the "some say" part though (who says? Why? Context? Ref?) But I digress...


1) The History of intelligent design is not what is insinuated, and un-supported, in the article.

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.


Also see: ID Timeline from the researchID.org wiki.



2) The reason the designer isn't discussed is for methodological reasons (ie, un-testable/falsifiable.) Sometimes it really is that simple folks.


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
non fingo.



3) ID is not creationism, repeat NOT creationism. This is one of the worst straw men out there imo.


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.


".... If one waters down the definition [of creationism] in this way, they end up ensnaring various theistic evolutionists and proponents of directed panspermy (such as Francis Crick) in the category of "Creationist." - Mike Gene [source]




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.


Seriously? This is just garbage imo. Even if this statement was supported here (which it's not) why is it necessary? I can't even decipher the last part, anybody?

[continued next post]

[edit on 15-7-2006 by Rren]




posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   

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.


An interesting (read: long-winded) take on the "God of the Gaps" argument. Why not just say ID = God did it... and that's all you need to know? No examples, refs, nothing... nada? Common ancestry (ie, "gaps between ancestral species and their modern descendants") what does that have to do with ID? What's "relatively imperceptible evidence of current evolution" exactly and how does it relate to ID?



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.



Deism, Theism, and um Raelism (?) respectively. Why is this relevant? How many non IDers accept one of those three? My guess is the overwhelming majority of people on this planet.




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.


Hasn't he/she moved off topic? We talking ID or creationism now? What kind of creationism is this? Also where is the support for this statement: 'ID is intensely focused on the complexity and esotericism of the human mind' C'mon guys I'm pretty sure that's just made up.



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.


Well I hope you've made the critics cringe now (hope ya'll have been with me all the way
) This was all (un-supported)opinion here and a horrible conflation of ID with creationism and even theism... bias anyone? Is the suggestion here that atheism is the only logical belief (anybody else notice that?)



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.


Great
Well sourced, wholly objective... heck it's almost encyclopedic. Whose opinion are we talking about here? He/she's not supported, in any way, shape or form, the conclusion (read: opinion) presented here... am I alone?

I know you guys are busy and can't proof read every thing that comes down the pike (honestly no hard feelings here.) I know most ATSers, so I assume most of the editors/contributors too, don't like ID. Regardless, there's nothing here that can be learned or used by a critic or advocate of ID. It's poorly researched and extremely biased imho. I hope this forum is where we discuss these things if not let me know the deelio.

Oh yeah the author only included one link for his article (Discovery Institute) I'd also recommend:
Pro ID
arn.org...
telicthoughts.com...
www.uncommondescent.com...
www.iscid.org...

The Essential ID Bibliography (books, websites, theories, ideas etc. for both sides of the ID/evo debate.)

Hope this is helps... Like I said if this isn't how the ATS wiki works feel free to throw this bad boy into the O&C forum.

Regards



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Hey man, what can I say, that's Wikipedia. I wouldn't go to that site if you put a gun to my .. For exactly the reasons you cited about that article...

Vas



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   

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 .. For exactly the reasons you cited about that article...

Vas
This is our (ATS) wiki though... can't be #'in on my lawn. i'll raise a stink.



I wouldn't waste my time with wikipedia (re: ID) either


At least they sourced their page though. *shrug*



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Hey Rren, thanks for the input and concern.

Anyone can create or modify tinWiki articles in goal of making tinWiki better. Additions to tinWiki must be factual, with out bias, and of a neutral standpoint.

When it comes to ID I can’t think of anyone more knowledgeable in the subject than you. Your help on this page would be a great contribution to tinWiki.

Here are a few links with some information on tinWiki.

What is tinWiki

Getting started

Contents/Policies, conventions and guidelines

Tutorial

As you have mentioned, there is no references to the content in this page.
Because of this I am going to delete the page in hopes that you will take advantage and give the page a fresh start.

Thanks again.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I apologize. I thought tinwiki was part of wikipedia, the last post had links that have shown me I was wrong.

Vas.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Give me a couple days to learn the how to use the wiki and put something together Umbrax. Also like to get Mattison0922 and Nygdan to proof read it first. Can I use this thread to fine-tune it before it goes in the wiki?

Thanks for the quick response I'll get started tomorrow.


Perhaps the author should have a chance to support his piece before it's deleted? Or, perhaps, re-write it to cover the conspiracy angle (wedge, dover, creationism in disquise etc) for a seperate ID entry. 'The conspiracy behind ID' or what-have-you.

Thanks again for the info.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   
What I make a new page I’ll write it up on MSWord first, then I’ll put it up.
I wouldn’t worry about having others proof read it. There should be no issues if your information is factual.
When writing about theory or speculation present it as such.

A tinWiki article is never done. If Nygdan, Mattison0922, or anyone else feel that more information belongs on the page they are free to add.

I'm looking forward to seeing the new ID page



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join