Tópico: Intelligent Design Real Evidences

[Poindexter]

Recently, I've been hearing a lot about Intelligent Design, but I don't know anything about the real evidences (if any) this theory is achieving. Do someone lnow anything about it?

[Atheist]

Why do you are asking in English?

[Atheist]

Inteligent Design is a new way of creationism. Doesn't have any evidence for it.

[Poindexter]

Why do you are asking in English?

Because this is the English Area of the Forum! English practicing is very important!!!

[Poindexter]

Inteligent Design is a new way of creationism. Doesn't have any evidence for it.

Thanks for the information!

[Pregador]

I think that the evidence could be the function of the universe and the mechanisms of evolution. All the universe have a lot of laws that make the universe work with harmony. All the the things have a function and could be transformed in other things, like a system.

[Agnostic]

Intelligent Design is even logical at some point, but what I don't understand is how its defenders can conclude that the only valid ' intelligent designer' is a god and, still worse, the Christian god specifically.

[n/a]

Exactly, Agnostic. Believe in a superior being, who created all aroud us, it's reasonable. We don't agree, but it's understandable.

However, to say that this god is the Christian god, looks very fool and irrational.

I was reminding today: some years ago, when I had some trust in a God, I thought that MTV should not show Marlyn Manson in its chanel. It could influence young people to what I thought that was bad things.

So, people have a tendency to want that the other humans, specialy children, follow their thoughts and ideas about the world. You every thing that you have the true, and this must to be teached in schools.

It's so hard to see that we must not give to children what we think that is the true and the rigth.

And I admire so much, people who believe, but want church for of state and schools.

(I'm sorry for my bad english.)  

[Poindexter]

(I'm sorry for my bad english.)  

Your English is not bad, Mioto!

[Galileo]

ID theorists posit that living things, due to their organizational complexity and magnificent design, simply must be the creations of some form of intelligence. Where evolutionary biologists see species evolving through a blind process of natural selection acting over millions of years, ID theorists assert that life as we know it simply could not have arisen in such a manner. Furthermore, they claim that this is a scientific observation. ID advocates don't always articulate precisely what sort of intelligence they think should stand in lieu of evolution on textbook pages, but God -- defined in a very nebulous way -- generally outpolls extraterrestrials as the leading candidate.

Source: Chris Mooney
------
With the failure of Creationism to defeat scientific evolution, the religious right in the United States developed a "Wedge Strategy" to try to do by stealth what they were not able to do openly. Its "governing goals" are:

1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Its 20-year goals are:

1. To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
2. To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
3. To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

If they ever get their way, a new Dark Age will descend upon America.

As someone once said, "Intelligent Design is creationism in a cheap suit."

There is an excellent book about it (in English).

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Intelligent Design is even logical at some point, but what I don't understand is how its defenders can conclude that the only valid ' intelligent designer' is a god and, still worse, the Christian god specifically.

That's because "intelligent design" is nothing more than secular creationism. Neo-ID original proposers (Behe and others) do not use religious arguments, and the fact that they already believed that YHVH exists and is the creator of the world, is just a minor detail. ID could in fact be an alien being, or any other god, already invented or not. It could be even poli-ID-ism, I think, although there's a bias toward speeking as if there's a single designer.
YHVH isn't a necessary part of the "conclusion"/presupposition of ID, it's just assumed by those who already believed in this specific god.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

The "evidence" for creacionism are the gaps between transitional fossils and the Bible. The gaps are getting narrower and the Bible is not evidence of anything.

Secular creationists (IDers) doesn't use this boring book nor any other, and also some of them don't use much this arguments of fossil gaps since they don't deny common descent at all (like Behe), but only that natural selection drives the evolution of some complex traits. Rather than that, they just were made up by a sort of god guy (something intelligent, let's call a "designer"), and "inserted" somehow in a certain lineage of preexistent living beings.

Most people doesn't even know that IDers doesn't deny common ancestry because non-secular creationists frequently steal ID speech lines style in order to sound more scientific. Not that IDers are scientific, but they actually sound somewhat as if they were.