I have thought about this. Do you not think it is a human characteristic to believe the universe had to come into existence
or be created? Why can it not be accepted that existence {but not necessarily this particular universe} always was? Why do
we have to have 'a creator'. Why not the possibility of an endless process of creation. This of course does not necessarily
say there is no creator but leaves the issue to personal belief. In the meantime existence itself may have always been and
may always be. In that scenario this universe {of which we are part} may have a beginning and an end but existence itself is infinite.
And then I am new here {on this forum} and am actually pleased to see the word Intelligent Design used without prejudice. I have found on other forums that use of the words 'Intelligent Design' even when denoting that they are being used without a necessarily religious connotation evokes a type of strange hostility in some. It is almost like you are using profanity and insulting someone. Hopefully here I will see real intelligence without a prejudicial design.

Admittedly I have not read all 17 pages in this thread so I do not know all that has been posted so far but I still thought
I would surmise my basic views on this subject. First we have to realize that the words intelligent design do have a dictionary definition referring to their use by creationists as a reason to believe in a creator. That said I see many of you and myself are using it in a broader sense. Basically to me it would seem that science and specifically scientific discovery is based upon a real existent reality which is already there a priori. Science is not inventing anything it is simply discovering that which was previously unknown. It would therefore follow if science is discovering something that already exists and can describe what is discovered intelligently that there is intelligent design to what is discovered - intelligent design was therefore already there it just needed to be discovered and defined. Am I right?

Xris wrote:

UniversalAlien wrote:Admittedly I have not read all 17 pages in this thread so I do not know all that has been posted so far but I still thought........

You have to define intelligent first.

I could use a dictionary or philosophical definition of intelligence. The problem though is proving intelligence exists.
I might think intelligent design could be used as part of a proof for the existence of intelligence itself however
you define it.

I like the words Intelligent Design. I believe Intelligent Design is simple and easy to understand. True, it is often used and defined to be a Creationist concept proving the existence of a Creator - this it does not due. However if we simply look at science and its discoveries we see science is discovering an order to the universe which science assumes is already there a-priori to the discovery - science assumes a logical intelligent design to existence unless you believe scientific discoveries are involved in creating what is discovered but that would give creator status to the scientists themselves and might be considered on another thread on this forum.

In the meantime we {most humans} assume they are existing in a logical ordered universe. In this universe I see intelligent design, a process of creation, and yes we can also see a process of evolution which also indicates Intelligent Design - with survival of the fittest being an intelligent theory having a pattern of design!

As to the issue of a creator we can see again a process of creation but this does not prove or disprove whether 'A Creator' is responsible - Is it possible to be a Creationist and not necessarily believe in a Creator? But that is for the religious forum - for here and now I say Intelligent Design should be accepted at face value - The universe {existence} is logical has a pattern of design and can be understood through intelligence.

God does not play dice with the universe.

-Albert Einstein

And as usual we run into the obvious anti-religious prejudice when we say the magic words intelligent design. It is as if some people whether philosophers, scientists or just run of the mill ordinary atheists can't stand the idea that they are living in a universe where intelligence exists. They would rather believe that all existence springs from chaos and that by some magic of random combination produced the logical demonstrable and definable world we now live in.

And yes you have answered the question I posed recently as to whether another form of logic, an unknown alien logic could exist. You who are so opposed to order in the universe and who believe that chaos rules and is at the root of existence are guided by this logic. And for want of a better term I will call it Crazy Logic.

And again for one of the best demonstrations of what intelligent design might indicate look at Darwin's Theory of Evolution - a theory that indicates an intelligent design pattern to nature - survival of the fittest - or is this too based upon random selection by chaos? I don't think Darwin meant that at all.

You see just because ID is used by creationists does not mean they have a monopoly to the concept. Please give me an example of one scientist who while attempting to discover or understand the world we live in, believes he is dealing with disorder and chaos while trying to understand physical existence. Even in Quantum Mechanics there is some type of fundamental logic at work and one day it will be understood and it will not reflect random chaos.

I say this: Intelligence is a relative understanding which can only be seen in mutually compatible states of existence and is hard to prove. But without intelligence there is no existence.

"God does not play dice with the universe" -Albert Einstein

Xris wrote:Nature created us and that can not be disputed. It determined the outcome and we are the result. If you look at the process from a human perspective it appears to be predetermined by a set of laws and formula that could be repeated over and over again if similar circumstances should occur. The real question we must ask, is nature independent of real intention from an external force, separate from nature? If a formula exists does it require a sentient creature to invent that formula. Religion muddies the water it is driven by desire to find god not a desire for the truth.

I agree. But on the other hand the anti-religious sentiments of some also muddies the water and the words Intelligent Design is a prime example. Just because it is used by creationists with a religious bias does not mean that by necessity that because one believes in a logical ordered universe he is affirming the existence of a creator. The universe and/or existence may have always been ordered in a pattern of intelligent design -this does not prove however that it has a separate source of creation.

Juice wrote:This thread is for those who wish to discuss and debate the science behind “Intelligent Design Theory” (ID). I would like to remind those, wishing to participate, that this is a science forum and although ID has been linked to religious creation allegories this thread is strictly for the discussion and debate of the science.

I would encourage those interested to ask questions, particularly since the science behind ID has taken a more modern approach with its concepts rooted in some intriguing science methodologies.

I would also encourage discussion and debate of the philosophies of science and how those philosophies could affect our reasoning behind ID, and of what may constitute constructive considerations to scientific reasoning especially in this modern political environment.

I am no expert! But, I am an expert in curiosity. I believe this exploration will reveal some exciting and surprising observations. Thank You for participating.

This was what the original poster started this thread with. Notice he was using the ID concept interdependently of the more common religious creationists use of ID which is used to prove the existence of a creator. In his next post immediately following he quoted an ID philosopher of the day {Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913). A contemporary of Charles Darwin}. I bring this up now because we apparently have regressed into a basic argument between evolution and creationism which was not the original intention of the OPs post.

That said, what I perceive is the philosophical tendency for the Western mind to define observable reality in a an either/or limited perspective. Why does the debate have to be whether there is or there is not 'a creator'? Why can we not see what is happening as a process of creation and leave the issue of an original and existent creator to the personal religious belief as it can not scientifically be proven one way or the other?

And why can we not accept the possibility of intelligence itself being a-priori - an inherit intelligence to existence and the universe which is continuously in the process of definition - A universe that always was and always will be. In this universe ID is still not provable but is in fact the prime directive.

Time out for a brief re-assessment. Again the original poster said:

Juice wrote: This thread is for those who wish to discuss and debate the science behind “Intelligent Design Theory” (ID). I would like to remind those, wishing to participate, that this is a science forum and although ID has been linked to religious creation allegories this thread is strictly for the discussion and debate of the science.

The problem as I see it is no one knows for sure how to define Intelligent Design as a science. And to simplify the issue one could see that if you remove the religious implications of ID as the original poster had suggested, you could easily see that all science is in fact based upon Intelligent Design. Or can you name ONE {1} scientific discovery that indicates a lack of intelligent design? One scientific discovery based upon un-intelligent design? One scientific discovery that indicates a chaotic order to existence?

Fanman wrote:The reason I say that nature cannot produce life on other planets in our solar system; at least not life like us, is because there is no such life on those planets, nor are they suitable for life like us or other life on earth to begin there. Billions of years in the future if the right conditions for nature to thrive on those planets occurs then we may see life on them, or if the intelligent designer decides to create life on those planets. I re-iterate, It would seem that we are extremely lucky to have life on our planet, while all of the other planets in the solar system do not, why did our planet have those conditions, when all of the other planets surrounding us do not? Questions which can only be answered by saying "we were lucky."

Interesting view but I must question it. First even though you say "nature cannot produce life on other planets in our solar system" and this is probably true there are many people and many books written on ET/alien life and encounters. True it remains to be proven whether other life forms exist in the universe but many scientists speculate that it is probable. Second, you keep referring to an 'intelligent designer'. Seems to me that an 'intelligent designer' and/or 'a creator' is a speculative and religious concept and can not be proven. BUT 'Intelligent Design' is obvious and if one stops trying to qualify why it is {or why the universe, life, and in fact all of existence} no further proof is necessary as we can only talk about what we intelligently perceive and obviously it must have a design to it.

Then again, as I can not affirm or deny what you call an 'intelligent designer' I could speculate too and then think he must have a sense of humor so he gave us the word/expression 'intelligent design' so he could see how atheists would make fools of themselves trying to prove there was no order to the universe!

Jklint wrote:Jokers Wild! This is SO over the top that even Monty Python would find this inspirational. They were always their own best professors who never required footnotes or reasons for anything. The genius of comedy and farce was their only inspiration and fully at their service. Nice to know you're equally talented. You should send them the script. The less concerned with reality the better the performance will be. In short, I can do nothing less than salute your crystalline brilliance which remains unutterably devoid and unpolluted by any viral reality!! This must be perfection and proof that we are indeed in God's image. Of course that image may give another alien life form acid reflux but that's beside the point!

Good points. It is hard to take many if not most of the assertions made too seriously without anything even approaching proof. But you used the word 'reality' several times. REALITY? What reality? Is there any provable reality? NO. I defy anyone to prove the existence of a reality and maintain that proof. There is no way to know for sure, and can only conjecture in relative terms what reality is. So if some of these philosophers want to believe in a reality of intelligent design and designed by an intelligent designer, why not? And if you want to believe Monty Python would find this inspirational, why not? Personally I still see intelligent design without qualification {an observable intelligent design to existence irrespective of source or origin if any} - It's when they try to qualify what it means that they get lost in their worlds of personal speculation.

"Of course you could believe in un-intelligent design - the theory that there is no a-priori/a posteriori order to the universe - in which case all order and design is a figment of the imagination of the perceiver - a very Zen theory of existence - Also this may allow the creation of other worlds and other universes BUT even there you still will have to show some order or pattern OR you have absolute chaos and absolute chaos is non-existence And because non-existence does not exist we can not perceive or talk about it."

"Or you can believe a world were intelligent design exists in opposition to absolute chaos. And the two opposing forces continue to battle each other - sort of like life battling death in such a way that neither force triumphs - in such a view complete order can never occur - life, death and the existent universe must continually remain in flux - a 'Tao' like view of existence."

"The more we think about human intelligence - the more elusive we find it to be. Capable of fairly advanced abstraction the humanoid still frequently exists in a mind set which jumps simple logic at almost every level. When controlled by a religious paradigm they were often afraid of science - now controlled by scientific thinking they fear the mystical and religious. The humanoid defect is apparent to us - we will try to make it apparent to them. "

Two words 'Intelligent Design' so scares their scientists that they act as if obscenity was used but the obvious hypocrisy in these same scientists who believe in an existent a-priori/a posteriori reality does not seem to phase them - They virtually persecute other logical scientists who see the logic in an intelligent universe so that it borders on the religious deviltry of burning witches at the stake. This is not rational thinking.

We now understand humans and why they fear us. They are afraid of an orderly universe - they like chaos. Our universe is not chaotic - random events occur independently of physical order but physical order remains the driving force of existence."

Quoting: -Alien Commander Omd I {human/alien channel}; A Pseudo-name I write under elsewhere

If we accept the existence of Intelligent Design we must ask the following question:

What is the reason for Intelligent Design?

Since some of you believe in 'A Creator', then as part of the same question, why has the Creator created Intelligent Design? What is his purpose for creating an intelligently designed world? And what purpose does that world so created have in existing?

Not meant as a criticism of any particular poster on this subject, but rather as a general impression on where this subject "Intelligent Design" has gone so far on this thread, I have the following comment:

It was once said that give enough monkeys enough time and enough typewriters and they would eventually type out the Encyclopedia Britannica {no longer in print}.

So I say give enough humans the words 'Intelligent design' and the freedom to express what these two words written together mean to them and you will reach the conclusion that humans are not very intelligent and have no real understanding of the meaning of the word design. This might also help to answer the question of why the Encyclopedia Britannica is no longer in print!

Schaps wrote:Ultimately, this discussion leads to the "first cause" argument -which is NOT resolve-able! My suggestion is that the individual simply goes with whatever precept seems more "comfortable" because - in the end, that is all that matters.

This is what I can not understand: Why must there be a first cause? Why must there be a beginning? What magic do the words Intelligent Design posses so as to render otherwise intelligent beings {humans} not so intelligent? Is the human mind so limited in some people that they can not see an eternal universe which never began and will never end - no beginning - no end.? Maybe it is because human life has a beginning and an end that some feel the universe must be the same. That is a very myopic view. I guess some must have 'the creator" - tell them to look at the heavens and dream on.

Groktruth wrote:.....This I have studied, practiced, proven, tested. Applied to Intelligent Design, it is clearly true beyond reasonable doubt. Evolutionary idea of adaptation and modification by descent are also very probably true. Natural selection is possible, but unlikely in most situations. Artificial Selection by an Intelligent Designer is the mechanism most likely behind most biological diversity, as is clearly the case with dogs and cattle, corn, and crops. This is the report of any and all who bother to play by philosophical rules, especially the philosophy of science. Starting with the rule that most men are dishonest, so that most who call themselves scientists are liars, usually self-deceived. Check their knowledge and application of the rules.....

Mostly I agree. And have been continuously arguing for the obvious nature of both intelligent design and an obvious process of creation which is occurring in real time. But the problem I have is when you use the words referring to an Intelligent Designer. When you talk about 'THE' Intelligent Designer you are making a religious assertion. You may be correct but I still don't believe you can prove this assertions beyond a reasonable doubt. There are those philosophers of the past and some of today who do see an intelligent universe as the way it is. If that is the case is it necessary to believe that 'A' Creator made it that way? Is it not possible that intelligence itself is both a priori and a posteriori and needs neither to be created or justified? Further when you say "Artificial Selection by an Intelligent Designer is the mechanism most likely behind most biological diversity" is it not possible and can you believe in the 'Ancient Astronaut" theory so popular today?