Can anyone actually come up with an argument FOR Intelligent Design?

Question

Frequently in the debate of ID vs evolution, the debate is always about the strengths or weaknesses of evolution. No one ever mentions the scientific strengths (if any) of ID. It's kind of like me saying the sky is red. You come up with all sorts of arguments saying the sky isn't red. You therefore use that as proof that the sky must necessarily be green. What scientific arguments are in favor of ID and not just philisophical ones against evolution?

Answer 1

Reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

When being interviewed by Tavis Smiley, Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “There are developments in some technical fields, complexity and information sciences, that actually enable us to distinguish the results of intelligence as a cause from natural processes. When we run those modes of analysis on the information in DNA, they kick out the answer, ‘Yeah, this was intelligently designed’ . . . There is actually a science of design detection and when you analyze life through the filters of that science, it shows that life was intelligently designed.”

Answer 2

Put in the philosophical sense, yes, an argument for intelligent design can be made. Put in a scientific sense, no. This is the major hang up between creationists, intelligent design advocates, and scientists. At its essence, evolution is scientific in nature--it asks questions that can (or at some point will be able to) be answered using scientific method. Science deals with the "how" and "when" questions. The other sides of the debate want to argue about "why" and "who". What creationists/intelligent design advocates want to discuss is not based on scientific method--it can be theorized, but it can't be tested, retested and re-examined by other scientists.

Creationists/ID advocates also usually don't accept one of the basic tenets of science--theories/hypotheses change based on new or evolving scientific evidence and information. Every time someone over the past 200 years has tried adjust the theory of evolution by using hard evidence and scientific reasoning, creationists/intelligent design advocates say "There go those crazy scientists again, trying to change their minds on the subject. Their theory must be wrong, look at how often it changes." Sorry kids...that's just the nature of science. Instead of trying to create an equally compelling scientific theory, they spend their time pointing out where they believe evolution and natural selection is lacking hard evidence.

As I said before, though, in the philosophical sense, ID, creationism, and evolution stand on fairly equal ground. It's easy to argue the merits and shortcomings of theories based solely on ideas and what people think, as long as you don't have to have concrete, scientific evidence to back it up.

Answer 3

This is a well laid trap for us creationists out there. You are trying to get us to come up with a scientific answer to a question that in an of itself is not scientific. The question as to the origin of life on Earth is not scientific. Since science is founded upon the principals of observation and systematic experimentation we cannot apply the scientific method to the origins of life. There can be no systematic experimentation or observation of the origins of life because none of us were there.Therefore, the question is philosophical. I see two major and most popular solutions to this question. Either a power above the limits of nature exists that sparked the beginnings of life or the laws of nature somehow created it on its own. Evolution appeals to people because it "sounds" logical. It is elegant and it is simple. But then there is the pesky business of its circumstantial evidence. I wont go into that because you specifically asked me NOT to. However, I will say that intelligent design has merits that do not coincide with the same merits of evolution. You want an answer that satisfies the logical and scientific part of your brain. Creationism will not do that. You cannot achieve a supernatural experience with logic. Why? because logic is founded upon the same laws of nature that our very existance is. If you want to understand the supernatural you need to break the bonds of that logic and reach beyond it. ID appeals to people because it gives an answer to the important questions of morality, faith, and the Purpose of our existence. These are all things evolution cannot answer. Summary:

1.) Evolution and creationism do not answer the same questions. Evolution satisfies some peoples questions as to "how" but it doesnt help us with the more profound questions of our purpose, faith, or morality
2.) The origin of life is not a scientific question. It's philosophical. Both materialistic evolution and ID have merits because the scientific method cannot be applied to the question.
3.) There is no scientific argument in favor of ID. ID is not scientific. You are asking an impossible question. Which makes it a trick question

Answer 4

I saw a show on TV last night with Richard Dawkins, he tried to debate evolution with Ted Haggart, an American evangelist. Ted looked like evil incarnate. Richard had a worried look on his face - so would I. He was eventually kicked out of the church grounds ($80 million dollars worth) for calling Ted's people animals (he didn't, but Ted inferred this from Dawkin's argument). As Dawkins rightly pointed out afterwards, we are, actually animals.
This is the debate you will get with ID proponents. You cannot debate evolution with someone who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old. Evolution could not have (visibly) happened in 6000 years, even Dawkins will have to concede that, therefore evolution is not true. No theory, other than ID could have occurred within this time frame. Unless you can prove, to the satisfaction of Creationists that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, you will get nowhere. And there is no evidence that will be accepted except if it does not contradict the Bible.
This is what evolutionists are up against. There is no science behind ID, just conclusions, shored up by massaged facts. When even one of the most intellectual men in the world cannot debate evolution with a pastor, what hope for the rest of us lowly scientists?

.

Answer 5

Well before you can argue in favor of a theory, you first have to be able to state what it is. I doubt even the most ardent of ID advocates can actually state what it is, other than in the form of a negation of evolution. In other words, it is easy to say "my argument for ID is ... well, evolution is impossible" ... but can they actually say what ID offers as an alternative besides just "some mysterious designer designed it"?

What is the mechanism that this designer uses to design things? How does this designer implement these designs (act as a creator)? What is this designer's *motive*? (Evolution doesn't need a motive, but an *intelligence* does.) What does this Designer use for energy? (Those people who throw the laws of Thermodynamics at evolution are the *last* ones to apply the same questions to ID.) And yes, what is the origin of this designer? ... All of these things would have to go into a theory of how ID explains the same things that evolution explains.

There is no point in even asking for arguments or evidence in favor of ID unless you can express what the theory *says*.

Answer 6

Exactly! Since evolution has science to back it up (of which I am unable to elaborate on here) but the fact that there are hard facts, and data, and above all LOGIC, to back up the science and evolution, it should be the Intelligent Designers who need to prove their story, not the other way around. It shouldn't be that those who don't have proof, ask for proof of those who do have it in the first place. It should be the other way around. There are no scientific arguments to back up ID - only those that are not mainstream that people choose to believe in order to reconcile their beliefs and science. Which is NOT possible in the first place because you cannot back up your religious beliefs with logic or science, it is just not possible. Anselm, Descartes, and many others tried, and their arguments are full of holes, because they were attempting to do what cannot be done - yet people believe these insane arguments, regardless of their illogic and insinuations that have no basis EXCEPT FOR THEIR BELIEF. So the next time someone says prove evolution to me - you don't have to. There already is proof, logical, scientifical proof, that they obviously have not familiarized themselves with for evolution, and instead ask them to prove God to you. Prove that it was God and not evolution instead. Can they do this? I would have to say no.

Answer 7

I would like to point out to Gabellion that he/she did not answer the question as stated. The question directly prohibited the type of logic used. You did not provide a sound argument for ID. You merely stated that it must be true because of your beliefs.
Also, you said "the odds" are against natural selection. What odds are you talking about? In fact, anybody who has studied the changes in living things can tell you that certain mutations are selected for due to environmental factors. In other words, living things evolve due to natural selection.

As a scientist, I will be willing to take ID into consideration iff there is evidence equal to or more powerful than the evidence for evolution. Nay, i will take ID into consideration if ANY evidence of it arises. Part of science is disproving theories despite personal belief. So if that could happen in this case, then I would accept it.

Answer 8

Ok, look, I'm not a creationist, but you must understand that the 2 things are not mutually exclusive. Although Darwin didn't believe in creation, he didn't rule it out. He said that it is just as big a compliment to a creator to say that he could create beings that are capable of evolution as he described it. He also said that as much as he traced organisms back to a single progenitor, he could not come up with a source for where the first organism came from. There have been theories for this, but of course nothing can be proven. As I said, I am not a strong advocate of Intelligent Design, but I want people on both sides to realize that they can both exist if you so choose to believe it.

Answer 9

Simple. Everything observed in the natural world goes from simple to complex (and always will) from abacus to PC from the kite to the jet aircraft.

An intelligent designer would need to be the most complex "thing" that has and will ever exist.

The concept that the most complex thing ever to exist came before the most simple, the hydrogen atom, is a ridiculous concept, not worthy of consideration.

Answer 10

That should be interesting. Allow me to star your question.
I will grab some popcorn, and watch what the creationists might weakly try to venture.
But I doubt they will have anything beyond: "if the world is there, then something should have made it", or quotes from the bible...