A formal statement of Intelligent Deisgn

@TruthMuse & @stephen_33

While Discovery Institute (DI) continues to publish articles, I haven't seen any recent updates to their formal statements of ID. Their FAQs gives the following statements

The statement on "what is intelligent design" directs to a 2005 "Not by Chance" article by Stephen Meyer. Here's a summary based on that article & the FAQs:

• ID rejects the charge that they originated with creationism: "Instead, it was first formulated in the late 1970s and early 1980s by a group of scientists-Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olson, and Dean Kenyon" 
• "who were trying to account for an enduring mystery of modern biology: the origin of the digital information encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule."

Evidence/Arguments they cite in support:

• The fine-tuning argument from cosmology: "British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle put it, the fine-tuning of numerous physical parameters in the universe suggested that “a superintellect had monkeyed with physics” for our benefit."
• Behe's irreducible complexity
• Dembski's specified complexity 

*This statement by Stephen Meyer, seems the best summary statement of the ID position:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin’s idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed."

*Summary: ID holds that there are features of the universe and living systems that are best explained by an intelligent cause. And that the origin of life, and evolution requires an intelligent cause.

*Importantly, they do not reject evolution and common descent, like creationists do.

To make my own position clear, I don't reject any hypothesis for which the evidence is compelling but along with most scientists studying 'origins', I'm not persuaded by the case presented for ID.

Accepting what we don't know and mintaining a 'wait and see' approach seems safer than grasping at proposed explanations that thow up even more very difficult questions and problems.

Anyway, where does assuming that some intelligent, hidden hand was involved in the creation of the Cosmos and life get you? No very far as I see it.

@TruthMuse, I find it interesting that IDers don't reject, but accept the evidence for evolution and common descent, i.e., that evolution has happened. They don't reject the "what" of evolution (that it happened); only the "how" and "why" (they reject the neo-darwinian natural selection-mutation mechanism for evolution, but accept that evolution has happened; they just say evolution requires an intelligent cause/guidance).

@stephen_33, yes, I see your point on the utility of ID. Even if one accepts it, "where do you go from there?" (research-wise, or even philosophically). But if we limit just to the issue of explanations, then I see the following questions:

• Does naturalism adequately account for the fine-tuning of the universe?
• Does naturalism adequately account for the origin of life?

No matter that prestigious scientists and philosophers around the world debate and continue to debate the matter. I'm sure the three of us can settle the issue and lay down the final word. 😆

No evidence should be rejected, that does not mean everything we think about any evidence correct. We may have strong evidence, but nonetheless miss something monumental, or fail to grasp something important of one thing over another thereby, not correctly coming up with the proper conclusion.

Well what stood out to me is that you cite ID-type arguments in your rejection of evolution, but IDers don't reject evolution.

Listen I don’t reject code acting as designed, a very good coder can do remarkable things. I do reject mindless causes for special functionality in processes as I have said countless times.

Yes, I understand (as I've said countless times), but you still reject the possibility of an intelligent designer directing evolution, right?

I say if an intelligent designer directed evolutionary change, that is by far harder than starting all life off at once with the proper required material, than changing each life after its kind. New bodyforms would have to emerge, new systems, and a host of dissimilar features without killing off an existing life, life as it goes through the changes. I don't believe in it, because there would be no reason for it, I don't believe even the fossil record reflects small changes through time making these alterations since we get an abrupt start and stop all new animals all the time, not a long string of almost this kind leading into the next kind. If the process was ongoing, there would be no need for those fossils there, they would be walking around among us almost this and almost that all over the place.

Why do think IDers accept evolution, then?

It is easy to go along and get along then sticking to what you think is true against the tide. Some simply believe it.

The actual reason, though, is that the scientific evidence supports it

Quite a mouth full.

It's IDers themselves who say they accept evolution on the basis of the scientific evidence

I said they believed it, what people accept as true varies. Some see some evidence as compelling others not so much. Today they argue about what a person's sex is because they no longer accept biology instead they prefer gender which is a fluid term. Without any means to ground our evidence into reality, there is nothing to build upon and when we refuse to look at all of the ramifications at once making all of the pieces fit together we are adrift without any hope. Some can look at all of the impossibilities of a chance performing incredible work with building and sustaining life and ignore it over the off chance someday someone will make the pieces fit together. Given our track record of accepting the unacceptable, I don't have much hope reasoning out reality will help some see what they refuse too.

I'm not sure how that relates to the topic at hand since science recognizes two biological sexes in the animal kingdom, since IDers do too, and since IDers reject "chance" and "mindlessness" like you do too, so they are not "refusing" anything you say.

It is always in the details.

There's an ID article I'll have to post a summary of that illustrates the point. An article on serial endosymbiosis and how chloroplasts and mitochondria in plant and animal cells were not part of an original creation event, but evidence a past history, and origin from bacteria. The ID biologist does not believe that natural selection is capable of causing this to happen, but also cannot deny the fact that this evolutionary history exists and still did happen (and in fact the author does an excellent job summarizing all the various lines of evidence that show this).

So, the IDer doesn't deny evolution, just the mechanism of evolution. And that's an important difference. If an intelligent designer is powerful enough to create life and the entire universe, then that designer could also bring about the diversity of life by a guided, evolutionary process if that designer wanted to do it that way.

The point is that you argue against evolution on the basis that a "mindless" process can't do that, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of evolution by a "mindful" process. You may personally disagree with that. I'm just saying it's still a logical possibility.

Your argument against "mindless" evolution is not an argument against "mindful" evolution 

My argument has NEVER been against evolution, only that mindlessness does not possess the necessary properties for creativity, it will not alter something that has systems functioning in concert and replace them with something new. It may within the parameters of the existing lifeform alter what is already there, but never wholesale changes into something utterly new.

The "mechanisms" of evolution are the only place I've been arguing, mind over mindlessness how many times does this need to be said? You have something that alters anything, it is always going to be found within the parameters of something established, it does it in such a way that the design of how that particular life functions are tweaked, I don't argue against that!

My rejection is the common ancestor, due to mindlessness cannot do it! We do see common designs, and uncommon designs doing similar things, the eyes of a fly, an eagle's eyes, an octopus's eyes, human eyes, and so on. We got different sexes, (not just the desire to be another sex), we have some that require mates, some that alter themselves to another sex so they can mate, and some that are asexual. The similarity and diversity within life in my opinion rule out any mindless process that anyone can give it credit for.

We don't ever see evidence for mindless starting anything, only that, with necessary material, all of this started, we don't have any reason to accept how mindlessness worked it all or worked it out so to continue generation after generation wasn't through mindless processes.

I've been very confused then. I didn't realize you don't have a problem with evolution if it's guided by an intelligent mind. I learned something new today.