intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php What is intelligent design? Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. ***The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. *** Through the study and analysis of a systems components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. ***Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act.*** en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer A designer is a person who designs. More formally, a designer is an agent that specifies the structural properties of a design object. In practice, anyone who creates tangible or intangible objects, such as consumer products, processes, laws, games and graphics, is referred to as a designer. intelligentdesign.org/ Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a systems components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. Professor Biochemistry Research Summary I am interested in the evolution of complex biochemical systems. Many molecular systems in the cell require multiple components in order to function. I have dubbed such systems irreducibly complex. (Behe 1996b, 2001) Irreducibly complex systems appear to me to be very difficult to explain within a traditional gradualistic Darwinian framework, because the function of the system only appears when the system is essentially complete. (An illustration of the concept of irreducible complexity is the mousetrap pictured on this page, which needs all its parts to work.) Despite much general progress by science in the past half century in understanding how complex biochemical systems work, little progress has been made in explaining how such systems arise in a Darwinian fashion. I have proposed that a better explanation is that such systems were deliberately designed by an intelligent agent. (Behe 1996b, 2001) The proposal of intelligent design has proven to be extremely controversial, both in the scientific community (for example, see Brumfiel, G. 2005. Nature434:1062‑1065) and in the general news media. (Behe 1996a, 1999, 2005) My current work involves: 1) educating various groups to overcome mistaken ideas of what exactly intelligent design entails, so that they can make informed judgments on whether they think it is a plausible hypothesis; and 2) trying to establish a reasoned way to determine a rough dividing line between design and non-design in biochemical systems. evolutionnews.org/2013/08/what_is_the_the075281.html Whats the scientific theory of ID? Who or what is the designer and how can we tell? What did it do and how can we tell? How did it do it and how can we tell? Where did it do it and how can we tell? When did it do it and how can we tell? Please pass on my thanks to all your colleagues for never bothering to answer these questions. [......] Michael Behe explains that we can detect design even if we dont know anything about the identity or nature of the designer: The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer. Behe even suggests that [i]ntelligent design does not require a candidate for the role of the designer. ID limits its claims to what can be learned from empirical data, meaning that it does not try to address questions about the identity or nature of the designer. While the empirical data allow us to study natural objects and determine whether they arose from an intelligent cause, such data simply may not allow us to determine the identity or nature of the intelligent cause. The text goes on to explain, If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. What kind of intelligent agent was it? ... We still would not know, from science, if the natural cause was all that was involved, or if the ultimate explanation was beyond nature, and using the natural cause. This non-identification of the designer has remained the consistent position of ID proponents throughout its history. For example, William Dembski explains, Intelligent design is modest in what it attributes to the designing intelligence responsible for the specified complexity in nature. For instance, design theorists recognize that the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy.Similarly, Michael Behe writes that ID remains silent on questions about whether the designer is natural or supernatural: [ID] is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paleys was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument. But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. Thus while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Platos demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newtons phrase hypothesis non fingo.7 Some critics allege that ID proponents are coy about the identity of the designer, who they really believe is God. Yet major ID proponents in all the cases Im aware of have been quite open about their own views as to the identity of the designer -- they have simply made it clear that these are personal beliefs, perhaps with philosophical or historical justifications, but not conclusions of science. For example, Michael Behe explains: [M]ost people (including myself) will attribute the design to God -- based in part on other, non-scientific judgments they have made -- I did not claim that the biochemical evidence leads ineluctably to a conclusion about who the designer is. In fact, I directly said that, from a scientific point of view, the question remains open. ... The biochemical evidence strongly indicates design, but does not show who the designer was.8 When ID proponents say that ID does not identify the designer, they are, in Behes words, only limiting ... claims to what ... the evidence will support. During the Kitzmiller trial, Behe gave clear, direct, and unambiguous testimony on this topic: Q. So is it accurate for people to claim or to represent that intelligent design holds that the designer was God? Behe: No, that is completely inaccurate. Q. Well, people have asked you your opinion as to who you believe the designer is, is that correct? Behe: That is right. Q. Has science answered that question? Behe: No, science has not done so. Q. And I believe you have answered on occasion that you believe the designer is God, is that correct? Behe: Yes, thats correct. Q. Are you making a scientific claim with that answer? Behe: No, I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors. [....]
Posted on: Tue, 27 May 2014 20:16:59 +0000