Home
» Intelligent Design » The Intelligent Design Zoo
The Intelligent Design Zoo
| January 15, 2007 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
If the challenge below were met, would it be evidence for ID or for teleportation?
43 Responses to The Intelligent Design Zoo
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I do find the relationship between TE and ID to be rather confusing (and I offer my comments as an interested outsider in the peanut gallery whose POV you might or might not find interesting).
Depending on who you talk to, TE might or might not be considered to be within the “big tent” of ID. It also depends on how you define TE. On at least one YEC web site (I think it was AiG), they referred in passing to Michael Behe as “an evolutionist” (they were quoting something he said that was favorable to their POV). I suppose by this they mean that Dr. Behe accepts common descent and descent-with-modification. But Dr. Behe is considered to be within the ID “tent” (unless I’m mistaken). So is he a TE? However, TE sometimes seems to get some criticism from the ID folks (at least from what I’ve observed here). And some TE’s no doubt are critical of ID.
I understand that the important distinction is between whether the common-descent / descent-with-modification involves completely unguided randomness or some sort of guided development. Or some combination of the two. Or front-loading. Or–as someone else here put it–small ‘i’, small ‘d’ (i.e., the “random” version of evolution, but being the result of an intelligently designed universe). It’s all very, very confusing, and it seems that the terms are fuzzily defined.
Might there be some more precise terms for the pigeon-holes that various ID or non-ID POV’s fall into? (I realize that this might be a lot to ask, because one or more sides in a hotly debated subject might prefer imprecesion so they can equivocate: like when atheists define any form of theistic anything–including the “random” version of TE–to be “creationism”).
So perhaps there could be something like “Theistic Darwinism” to designate the “random,” non-ID flavor of TE; and “Guided Theistic Evolution” to describe something more like Dr. Behe’s version (if I understand him correctly).
Or maybe I’m just hopelessly confused and need to just do more reading on the subject
…
The Darwinian Aquarium
I’ve been inspired by this UD post.
…
We should remember the materialist only argument for evolution lives in the past with great speculation and they’re flailing their arms in deep water with their stubborn refusal to admit just how wrong they’ve been. “JUNKDNA” causes more travail and shouting with each new function that is found.
ID(and Creationist) live in the present and in the future. IDist and Creation scientist can manipulate life now and in the future by intelligent planning and foresight. By “tinkering.”
Ateleologist cannot produce a valid experiment for dust to man, by a series of accidents or of snowflakes turning into polar bears. It is they who are living in fairy tales. All experiments have been utter failures. Fruit Flies, radiation, etc., etc.
They are caught up in the first two subsets of Trevors and Abel’s Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity.
1) Random Sequence Complexity
2) Ordered Sequence Complexity
Neither of which leads to
3) Funtional Sequence Complexity
Because they refuse to acknowledge the line of demarcation between numbers 2 3 they fail to produce a pragmatic scientific theory for future scientific research. Up to this point, science has progressed despite materialist evolutions 150 years of miscalculations and sometimes intentionally misleading(piltdown man, nebraska man, Haeckels embryo drawings) campaigns displayed to the public masses. Unfortunately forced upon children in schools with no apologies from the afundies.
I am reminded the loudest screaming and shouting occurs during the realization one side is about to lose. This happens in games, politics, war and in science as great shifts in realization happen to individuals and groups.
The other side has been screaming with fundamentalist calling for wacky oppression of freedoms against their perceived enemy. This will continue and get louder for awhile as ID becomes more accepted in scientific circles.
As scientist cross over from the past into the present and see that ID provides more fertile ground in the future as a way to think about life’s design in us and around us.
When scientist like Dr. Sanford and Dr. Pellionisz are eschewing materialist only philosophy of science, the Darwinist are in trouble. Atheist can no longer claim and throw insults as more prominent scientist shed light on the Code of Life found within.
Materialist only crowds are losing ground little by little.
Simple things that we know by simple observations. Without massive planning life does not 1) begin, 2) survive, 3) produce more informationally rich complex life forms.
The mocking and scoffing is more evidence of a scientific groupt think culture in meltdown mode.
When “ethical scientist” start Hitler-esque propaganda tactics like comparing pedophiles to Christians, they’re in serious trouble both morally and scientifically.
They should be called out for what they are, morally corrupt, propagandist. They’re no longer scientist, but charlatans.
When they started throwing insults instead of science, it was a sure sign of defeat. They have nothing left but insults and propaganda.
ID is the future paradigm. Life, new life does not and will not “evolve” in other galaxies and solar systems, on other planets, moons, without specific and complex criteria prior to and during lifes emergence. New life here will not result spontaneously and unfold without prior planning and guidance by intelligent agents.
The Third Subset of Functional Sequence Complexity is not attained without guided intelligence.
And the Four Null Hypotheses still remaind unfalisfied.
The evidence for ID is already met with the existence of the cage!
“The evidence for ID is already met with the existence of the cage!”
Don’t forget the language on the sign.
[...] This picture, from My Confined Space, is doing the rounds (Uncommon Descent, Panda’s Thumb). It’s nice to know that by “no evidence for intelligent design”, ID critics really mean “no animals randomly popping into existence”. [...]
The ID Zoo won’t resolve anything because you can’t provide an answer to a question you don’t understand.
When we ask the question “Do you believe in evolution or creation?” we presuppose that the issue is of one or the other–that is, that by “evolution” we mean the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) while by “creation” we mean the special intervention of God to create life ex nilo.
However, as ID theory clearly shows, the evolution/creation debate is a distraction from the real issue–namely, the re-establishment of design as a scientifically acceptable mode of causation (along with chance and necessity).
As other comments have indicated, the cage itself, as well as the sign posted before it, are already the products of intelligent design, thus tainting any conclusions we might draw establishing a purely naturalistic, Darwinian event.
jb:
I think one of the main differences between TEs and the ID camp is that the ID camp asserts that one can detect design in nature. TEs feel that this is contrary to science and reason, as well as being damaging from a theological perspective. TEs accept the “random version of evolution” as the most acceptable theory from all of the aforementioned perspectives. For more on that, I suggest you read Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller.
looks like it happened after-all:
http://viewmorepics.myspace.co.....1755708403
and, I’m afraid it proves them right, eventually the monkey will become a human!
Haha. Thats a funny picture.
I think many people, both on the ID side and off, confuse ID and special creation.
How are we to know that the designer(s) of life even had the ability to poof things into existance or use teleportation? If something appears there, it is evidence of teleportation of some sort, but the analysis of what appears there is what would make or break Design.
Is there a reason why I am not able to post here since new look UD?
As ID and evo wars raged,
A materialist set up and staged
A demand. So obtuse!
. . . Treating God like He’s Zeus.
Was it his brain or his will that was caged?
SCheesman:
“From nothing?” Who said that? If a designer exists, he/she/it/they would certainly not be “from nothing”, although the designer might exist in a realm that is utterly unknowable to human reason.
At any rate, neither is more probable since probabilities are assessed from known occurances. Thus far no known occurances exist for either ID or the Blind Watchmaker. If there were, there would be no contraversy.