I would just like to know everyone's general opinion about Intelligent Design.?

Question

Please indicate your opinion by typing ID (Intelligent Design), C (Creationism), or D (Darwinist/Evolutionist). If you could put a little about why you agree with that particular view as well, that would be great!

Thanks for your time!

Answer 1

I think ID asks a lot of interesting questions ... about the nature of information, complexity, form to function, etc.

However
(1) A bunch of questions, even good ones, does not constitute a theory;
(2) Most of these questions have been answered for decades in such sciences as information theory, thermodynamics, chaos theory, chaotics, emergence theory, etc. all without resorting to a 'designer';
(3) A good explanation explains complex things in terms of simpler principles ... ID does the opposite, it explains complex things in terms of an even more complex and mysterious entity ... a "designer" with unknown properties, unknown motives, unknown mechanisms ... basically something of infinite complexity. It makes things less understandable, not more.

So count me firmly in the D camp.
(A) It is an incredibly simple and elegant theory (although that is not reason enough to accept it); and
(B) The evidence is overwhelming, and still growing. Evidence from fossils, genetics, molecular (DNA) evidence, morphology, embyrology, cladistics, bacteriology, virology, immunology, biogeography, etc. etc.
(C) It makes predictions all the time that would falsify the theory if found to be false ... but all of them have been born out.

Answer 2

I think it's important to point out that it's really not an all-or-nothing question. For example, there's a ton of fossil evidence that's *really* hard to argue with in good faith that shows that (1) life is old to the tune of a couple billion years, (2) animal forms have changed dramatically during that time, (3) pretty much every living thing on earth is related (possibly with initial conditions carefully designed).

Believing in strict Biblical creationism (C), (ie, six-days 5,000 years ago) requires active disbelief in mountains of carefully documented evidence concerning these facts (as well as an active, global conspiracy amongst all academic biologists, geologists, geneticists, molecular biologists, etc). That's the realm of the willfully ignorant.

ID is a very different thing, because it (based on advocates like Michael Behe and Kenneth R. Miller) agrees with all of points (1), (2) and (3) above. All it's saying is that maybe *some* of the details of life were designed by an unknown "designer". Remember that this is very, very close to what most people think of as "Darwinist/Evolutionist". But with just with some early or low-level bits being "designed". Behe and Miller are *not* arguing against life being four billion years old. Or that the mechanism of evolution is clearly shown by fossil and genetic evidence.

Also note that the key elements that many American Protestants dislike about Evolutionary Biology are still there: that humans and apes had a common ancestor a few million years ago, that all life is interrelated (in the biology sense), and that evolution is, and has been, an ever-present, on-going process.

There are probably many intelligent and well-educated people that believe this. I don't think many of them would call themselves "ID'ers", but they might call themselves Deists, non-traditional Christians, or most likely just "Christian".

So where's all this controversy coming from?

ID is a new label for Deism that has been heavily pushed by Creationists to oppose scientific rationalism. Lest this sound like a conspiracy theory, go look up "Discovery Institute". In my opinion, these people are not interested in learning or discovering anything, but are rather trying to create an artificial distinction between belief in a Creator and Evolutionary Biology.

In particular, the mantra is "teach the controversy". Be very careful to understand just what is controversial. Is it that
- that life on Earth is billions of years old?
- that modern apes and modern humans have a common ancestor?
- that all life on Earth has a common ancestor?
- that the mechanism of Evolution changes living organisms over time?

Nope. The only real controversy between ID and D is whether some (very, very few) biological mechanisms that we see today show signs of specific design. Keep in mind that there are many more mechanisms that seem downright dumb if "designed" but have well-explained evolutionary histories.

What's sad is that, in the end, when you look carefully at the actual arguments, the whole "controversy" turns into some people arguing about whether to admit we don't understand how some things came about, or else just call them "designed". Is that really such a big difference when compared to the way-out-there notion of Biblical six-days Creationism??

Oh, and I'm a D. :-)

Answer 3

I think ID is missing the point. Trying to connect current beliefs to anything doesn't work because what if they are just not true? I definitely agree with D, but why can't D be the way God planned it all along?

Answer 4

isn't ID the same as C? But anyway, I think I'm a C that believes in D. I guess I believe that some higher power had a hand in the creation of matter and the early forms of life but evolution was then allowed to take over.

Answer 5

Actually my opinion is that intelligent design is a step towards the middle and i would hope that those who favor evolution would see it as such, but they have run the other way, exacerbating the polarization. i think we should try to understand and respect each other not polarize. ID, C & D--i favor inclusion and compassion.

Answer 6

ID is a disingenuous attempt to disguise religion (C) as science, and it's the same ignorant crap all over again.

Answer 7

ID is just C in disguise.

Evolutionism is science and the other two are religion.