Meanings of Intelligent Design

Intelligent means different things to different people; here I will write about a little of that...

Pathetic hodge-podge of pious pseudo-science.

For one, they're not theorists: theorists work with evidence. The reason Darwinism is so convincing isn't that it somehow excludes the existence of a creator, only that it removes design from the biosphere. Descended from other species = not designed = no adam and eve story = no original sin = no old testament = no messianic prophecy = shut up and leave the world alone now.
50% Voted for by George Bowling, Nocturne.
View 2 comments Hide Comments
Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
- right now
  
  Adding your comment:
- TeChNoWC
  June 16
  Edit | Reply
  
  Darwinism is a religious adherence in its own right as well. Both are theories with evidence but evidence is never substantial when dealing with such topics as 'the creation of all that IS'. There is not enough evidence for either schools of thought, yet schools preach evolution as though it were religious doctrine.
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
right now

Adding your reply:
Your Comment:

"pre-quantum mechanical era"

what a joke.
one aspect of quantum mechanics is that on some level it functions without a relation to time.
"pre-quantum mechanical era" is paradoxical,
in fact what he's trying to argue is essentially that God is the functioning component of the higgs field.

Voted for by Molzahn.

View 1 comment

Intelligent Design and the Cosmos?

Intelligent Design in the field of cosmology may mean many things. For some the phrase seems a counterpoint to a Darwinian takeover of popular beliefs in how life on Earth came to be. Natural selection as a concept for advancing life on from nothing to the wide variety still existing today after centuries of decimation by human actions was created as a naturalistic philosophy in contradiction to other notions such as fundamental beliefs that life was created in a finished form by God perhaps as recently as five to ten thousand B.C. of course the Bible does not itself set out a specific time paradigm for the creation of the Earth such as many Christians drew from the Bible before Darwin’s reformation of planetary intellectual history.

Today intelligent design is held to mean that God at some point before or during the creation of the history of the universe shaped it, rather than dumb random in the Universe chance formation or DRUNC Theory. Some Intelligent Design theorists such as William Dembski, Mark Reynolds, Robert F. Dehaan and John Weister believe that Intelligent Design by God requires an alternative mechanism or principle of the formation of life on Earth than is given by natural selection or species variation over time into a variety of forms which are adapted best to given environmental conditions. These theorists of intelligent design seem to accept geological time parameters such as that of the Cambrian  540 million years before present when life is hypothesized to have developed 50 basic structural foundational types of which 37 remain in existence today, yet deny that permutation of genetic or fleshy material by chance environmental natural selection was the source, and instead an intelligent designer selected these forms through various unknown means and set them into existence, after which they did perhaps continue to evolve in lines not at all conformable to simply Darwinian parameters.

***** There have been Christian theorists that have interpreted the book of Genesis and Bible in such a way that evolution theory isn’t precluded as a possible means for bringing life into being in the vast history of the Earth, and I tend to believe that God did evolve the world, although because of the Supreme Being’s non-contingent character with more dimensional engineering capability than is imaginable by humanity, the time literals or values as well as order of creation are difficult to set into concrete human comprehendsible parameters. God might well have pre-determined the entire Universe and set that design into being from a particle or field/wave smaller than a billionth of a nanometer (primordial Higgs field) and expanded it with superluminal speed briefly and then more slowly with conventional forces and in advance understood each and every particle that would ever exist as well as their locations, and yet allowed them apparent uncertainty in waveform positions in order to give them freedom of motion. Evolution can be through natural selection and yet simultaneously be entirely pre-determined by God’s original ‘intelligent design’. The fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves, in interpreting the book of Genesis meaningfully in it’s literary and historical context and rationally associating it with some accuracy with what is known philosophically about cosmology. I have tried to do that with an initial effort in ‘Creation and Cosmos; The Literal Values of Genesis’.

***** Intelligent Design theorists contribute meaningfully to valid criticism of Darwin’s pre-quantum mechanical era, pre-plate techtonic era theory yet there is no necessity of discovering clever God-place knots in the string theories of cosmology that could only have been tied by an Intelligent Designer when the entire string or brane theory, the entire cosmic mass-energy at any given place-time was created by God from an initial design. Apparent uncertainties in physics are needed for apparent indeterminism to allow change to occur after-the-fall from an eternal, perfect realm closer-to-God perhaps.

Voted for by GaryCGibson.

View 10 comments

right now

Adding your comment:
Joao Camilo
January 15, 2006
Edit | Reply

You seem to not know what darwinism deal about (calling it a concept, not a theory was a bit funny) and I wonder which valid critic it was ever added ? Plus you just telling - we still do not know, so it is god (which in the end just mean, I know - the exactly oposite of your claim).
GaryCGibson
January 18, 2006
Edit | Reply

etc
Jose; if you drink alcohol before you post, why not just try something else. If you don't use alcohol before you post on 'intelligent design' and other subjects, try reading about what an ad hominem is, and then attempt writing something else on the point.
GaryCGibson
January 18, 2006
Edit | Reply

http://www.designinference.com/ Dembski's writing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution theory/concepts http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/122/module1/history.html http://people.lulu.com/blogs/view_post.php?post_id=17072
Joao Camilo
March 22, 2006
Edit | Reply

Ad hominem is an attack to the person, not the argument. You for example accused me of being drunk. Ad Hominem. I said you do not seem what darwinism is about and calling a theory a concept is a good evidence. And the valid critics are a blog ? Wikipedia ? (They do not even have the article about this) ? Antropology page talking about Social Darwinism, which is something different than Darwnism in evolution ? Those are where you have information about a specialized biological theory ? Those are the "critics" ? As I said, you have no idea what darwnism is. You just proved it. Please, drink a little, perhaps you can access regions of your brain where you will notice how dumb your post was. (That is an ad hominem)
petethemeat
June 8
Edit | Reply

This is the second time you have insulted a members intelligence, by rather ironically telling them to research the meaning of ad hominem. Your condescending attitude is not desired, especially when coupled with the hypocrisy you often display.
wbiro
June 12
Edit | Reply

A Mirror Concept
It is a mirror concept- we see ourselves creating, and transfer the concept to the possibility of a higher being...
Nocturne
June 16
Edit | Reply

Both?
You said both are theories with evidence - I've attempted to find scholarly scientific articles (peer reviewed, etc) that advocate Intelligent design, and I have not come up with much. "Evidence", however one uses the term, seems to weigh heavier on the side of one theory rather than the other.

"yet schools preach evolution as though it were religious doctrine."

The school to which I had gone had taught evolution in a rather balanced, not neo-fanatic manner. Which school are you referencing? Do the schools in Australia take a very hard-liner view, claiming evolution as unarguable fact?
shellemilyrose
September 24
Edit | Reply

Multi-dimensional Beings?
I'd be lying if I said I was an expert on the topic of physical vs. anti-matter, or an expert on gravity vs. anti-gravity. So with my humble limitations in plain view, I ask you gentlemen to consider the fact that thoughts and emotions, while displayed in physical form originate from an immaterial dimension of the universe. Fact: biological symptoms, hormones, vitals, etc. can explain the presence of an emotion such as happiness, anger, fear etc. Fact: the symptoms don't explain the origin of the emotion itself.

Scenario: A mother leaves her house to check the mail and turns around to see that her house is on fire with her 2 week old baby upstairs. We understand that the expected emotions would be of fear, horror, and terror. The presence of high adrenaline would verify the presence of these emotions, but what stimulated the release of adrenaline? Is merely seeing a fire on one's house the stimulus of adrenaline? Or is it a mental connection?

Knowing that a fire can consume and kill and knowing that her baby is in the house, the connection of those two bits of knowledge contribute to the fear/adrenaline. So knowledge is the absolute understanding of an effect or a cause on at least some scale. Intelligence is being able to connect two bits of knowledge to form another bit of knowledge. Wisdom is being able to apply intelligence from its immaterial form into practical and tangible form.

An equation is immaterial until it is spoken and/or written down. Imagination is immaterial until it is written or brought into the physical through verbal or written communication. So the intangible is made tangible through verbal and written communication. This is proof that the immaterial exists, because if it didn't, then our minds wouldn't be able to conceive of something not already visible to us. Whether something exists in our minds or exists in tangible form, it still exists. nothing = nothing = nothing So if our minds are perceiving something in our imagination then clearly the presence of the something disproves the concept of nothing.

The spirit realm is immaterial and the physical realm is material. The Soul (mind, imagination, emotion, intellect) is the connection for living beings between the spiritual and physical realms.

In modern physics, there is the idea that gravity and anti-gravity could have been split down the middle from some greater cosmic distinction to create what is known as "The Big Bang." What if the physical realm (gravity) and the spiritual realm (anti-gravity) were both split from a much larger "soul" realm? The place where intelligence, emotion, and imagination exist?

If this were true then it would mean we would need our soul to communicate between the physical and spiritual realms because that's where the physical and spiritual were birthed from. But going back to the soul realm (which might be another dimension all on it's own) if spiritual and physical are both birthed from the soul realm and the soul realm has the aspects of intelligence, emotion, and imagination, then it is quite plausible from a cosmologists and astro-physicists form of science that the universe does have a design and that it is birthed from a realm partly composed of intelligence. Thus: Intelligent Design.