Intelligent Design is not creationism

Intelligent design has nothing to do with religion. It has nothing to do with the supernatural. And ID is not anti-evolution if one defines evolution simply as “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry. However, the National Association of Biology Teachers contends that evolution is:

It is this specific claim made by the NABT and other neo-Darwinists that intelligent design advocates are challenging.

Atheist Richard Dawkins says:

He begins his book "The Blind Watchmaker" with the observation that:

Why do living things look like they were "designed for a purpose"? One logical possibility is that evolution is the product/output of design. Or better yet, life is designed to exploit and channel evolutionary processes.

The Darwinists promote another possibility, namely, that the purposefulness observed in nature is not real but an illusion. In fact, they will tell you that consciousness is not real in its own right: There is no mind, there is only brain function. Purposefulness is nature and consciousness are an illusion. They are products of an accidental/coincidental process.

According to Richard Dawkins, Darwinian theory was developed as a counter argument to the observed fact that living systems appear to be designed. Before Darwin "there was no alternative explanation for apparent design." Thus, Darwinian theory is essentially a rebuttal of design. As Dawkins points out so explicitly, it is a theory that seeks to show that the apparent design in nature is actually just an illusion.

The denial of actual design in biology is central to Darwinian thought. While Dawkins could be right, there’s no proof that the apparent design in nature is just an illusion. Therefore, either both the ID hypothesis and the blind watchmaker hypothesis are science or they are both non-science. One is the flip-side of the other. If the hypothesis of "no design", is science, then it necessarily follows that its counter argument is science. Design is science and not metaphysics for the same reasons that the evolutionary argument against it is science and not metaphysics. To be testable, the blind watchmaker thesis needs a null hypothesis which just happens to be ID. Without it the claim of "no-design" is dogma not science.

Stephen Meyer says:

Most people acknowledge the reality of free will, with only the most deterministic materialists arguing that free will is an illusion. Science usually acknowledges human volition as part of reality, and while human volition is neither automatic nor measurable, and is only statistically predictable, it is not usually regarded as “supernatural”. ID argues that volition is an aspect of all living matter, that the ability to initiate spontaneous action in response to environmental challenges and damage distinguishes life from inanimate matter. All living organisms have some limited ability to sense their own level of function, and explore creative solutions. “Selection” is made by the internal organizing intelligence of the organism, as opposed to Darwinian “natural selection“ which involves the elimination of entire “less fit” organisms. Internal selection allows multiple creative solutions to be explored without involving the death of the whole biological system. Such responses by individual, living organisms are not “random with respect to fitness”, but are in direct response to immediate needs -- exquisitely complex, purposeful mechanisms that allow living matter to adapt in a way that inanimate matter clearly can not.

What should be taught in school? It should not be taught that consciousness, free will, logical reasoning ability, and the purposefulness of biological processes, have been "scientifically proven" to be an illusion because that's not true. We need to separate the findings of empirical science from the deductions of materialist philosophy.

It is becoming more and more untenable to defend an a priori exclusion of teleology in biological processes on the basis of metaphysical beliefs that aren't the least bit empirical. The assumption of ateleology is LESS empirical than straightforward acknowledgement (and investigation) of apparent design.

Biological science has been corrupted by the injection of philosophy/metaphysics. There is an invalid a priori assumption of ateleology and this invalid assumption is attached to what is taught in school. Philosophical materialism disguised as empirical science.

Eliminate the metaphysical corruption, and let the design in nature speak for itself.

 

Well OK!...wish people like you were my Math professor...then I could make up my own mind if I solved a problem correctly!!

 

A biology student believes the design he observes in nature is real. You, his teacher think he is wrong. Okay, let's hear your empirically based argument as to why he should view the design in nature as an illusion.

 

As a child we read books which referred to Green Cheese on the Moon(and it made good sense at that time).....So it should also be taught in schools alongside the traditional geography.

Then, let the Students Decide what to believe!! (Also students might like to self-score their tests, including SAT tests!! They should be free to choose whatever they believe their SAT score should be!! )

 

WoodyAllen wrote:

So you are comparing the observation that things in nature appear designed for a purpose with the Moon being made of Green Cheese?

 

WoodyAllen wrote:

I take it that means you don't think a biology student should be free to believe the design he observes in nature is real. It is your job as his teacher to correct his mistaken belief, right? Okay, let's hear the empirically based argument you will present to him as to why he should view the design in nature as an illusion.

 

You think Darwin's speculative theory is the equivalent of a mathematical proof?

 

Or conversely, that concluding design in nature is real is the equivalent of concluding that 2+2= 5?

 

Exactly!! That is the point. As long as the professor cannot prove that the student's understanding of the material doesn't warrant an 'A' grade, who is to say that the student does not deserve an 'A'?? In order to prove that the student does not deserve an 'A' grade, the student's knowledge would have to be rigorously tested. Therefore, the student's best bet is to advocate for a system in which there is no testing. As long as the student's knowledge is untestable, there is no way to refute his claim that he is an 'A' student! In this case, he is an 'A' student because he says he is.

Too bad Vonnegut wasn't here to lampoon these pathetically credulous believers.

 

That is your own personal definition, not that of the official source for Intelligent Design/ creationism. Dembski and Behe way outrank you and they clearly show and confirm in their Discovery Institute "Wedge" document, Intelligent Design IS creationism.