Understanding Intelligent design; a guide for the confused

While ID proponents are trying hard to make their model understandable, and to clear up misconceptions people have about it, many evolutionists are trying hard to confuse the issue. They like to present false notions of ID, and to spread disinformation about it. While this is one method of winning a debate, they shouldn't expect any accolades for their tactics. While they insist creationists give a scrupulously accurate account of the evolutionary model, they show no willingness to return the favor. They might be wearing lab coats, but they argue like tobacco company lawyers.

Quotes and comments;

1. The quotes are taken from the video lecture 'Understanding Intelligent design' given in 2010 by Paul Nelson. [1.] If people really want to know what ID is, they would do better to watch this video than listen to the insults and obfuscations offered by materialists.

2. 'One of the main criticisms of ID is that it's merely god of the gaps reasoning. i.e. science can't solve x and so ID people claim this as evidence for God or for design.'

3. 'Roger Penrose, while not a theist, at least in the conventional sense, is a Platonist... in that he believes mathematical entities are real and exist in a non-material realm.'

4. Nelson uses a definition of ID that says; 'The theory of ID holds that certain features of the universe... are best explained by an intelligent cause...'

- No one, not even Dawkins, can deny that some things in the universe are the product of intelligent design. (e.g. my beer mug.) It's not a matter of design vs no design; but of what things are, or were, designed.
The key issue as I see it is this; how can we decide whether X is or was designed. I don't think ID advocates have solved this. They've demonstrated that undirected processes don't work, but they haven't given us a method we can use. (As far as I know.)

I think the closest they come is to say; 'there's no way undirected physical processes could account for X' but this is a negative approach if you will. I personally think it works quite well, but it doesn't satisfy materialists or evolutionists. They seem to feel physical processes can do anything. (With the possible exception of producing a hit song on the radio. If there are there any hit songs anymore.)
They haven't demonstrated this; but this is their claim. (I don't know why they think undirected physical processes can produce an eye but not a rap song :=}

The question is this; how can we recognize intelligence in the universe? Well; I find it easy to recognize in fellow humans (at least some of them). If I see in the world what I see in my mind (that sounds awkward) then I think I have a right to call it intelligence. Examples would be what? planning? purpose? creativity? the ability to produce something beyond inert matter? something not found in inert matter? Codes? language? the arbitrary? that which violates physical law? (e.g. the airplane)
I personally think that 'life' is evidence of intelligence, but I realize Darwinists don't.

To me birds are evidence of intelligence; i.e. the ability to fly. I think this is as much evidence for intelligence as the airplane. In a merely physical universe things fall; they do not fly. (They might explode upwards, but that's not flying; by flying I mean winged flight.) This is a violation of the law of gravity if you will. It's not 'natural' at all. A falling rock is natural, not a bird riding an updraft. (By natural I mean physical.)

Atheists claim that 'supernatural' explanations have no place in science. The trouble with this statement is that it appear to rule out human beings (supra natural) as causes, as explanations for certain events. e.g. what's the explanation for an artificial cochlear implant? It's certainly not natural; it's not the product of natural selection. It obviously has a supra natural explanation. The cause isn't physics but intelligence. [3.]

5. "The statements of science must invoke only natural things processes." - National academy of sciences

- Must? Is that a scientific concept? This definition isn't scientific, but philosophical. If only science can give us truth, this definition can't be true.

Let's look at a definition of must;
a. 'To be obliged or required by morality, law, or custom: Citizens must register in order to vote.
b. 'To be obliged; be necessarily compelled; be bound or required by physical or moral necessity, or by express command or prohibition. - Century Dictionary

- Hmm... the definition of science given above, doesn't sound very scientific to me. To say science 'must' do x or y is to posit morality law or custom as the foundation of science. Their definition has the musty smell of an old law book.

Does this definition mean there can't be any science of things and processes created by human beings? e.g. can there be no computer science? no science of medicine? no science of engineering?
Let's go way out there; let's say sometime in the future men create a planet, and fill it with biological life forms they've created in the laboratory... including intelligent bipeds. The question then is this; can there be no science on this planet?

Is man a 'natural' thing or process? Not in any ordinary sense of the term. Natural refers to physics, when used in discussions concerning science. (From McMillan; natural; existing in nature and not produced or caused by people.)

From The Skeptic's dictionary - Natural;
'Civilization is unnatural. Indoor plumbing is unnatural. Corrective lenses are unnatural. So are automobiles.
' To have a broken arm set by a physician is unnatural. To let it heal spontaneously would be natural, even if debilitating for life. Getting a medical degree is unnatural. Foraging and experimenting by trial and error would be natural, even if often lethal. Children born with no brains or other monstrous deformities are natural. Brain surgery to remove a tumor is unnatural. ' - Robert T. Carroll

- A key word in this definition is only. i.e. it has to be what we say and cannot be anything else. (The totalitarian mindset in full flower.)

Only;
'In but one manner, for but one purpose, by but one means, with but one result, etc.; [Century]

- This academy definition of science is meant to ensure a single result... i.e. it's meant to ensure the process produces a single answer, the answer the authors desire and approve of. Method is intimately tied with result. There is a purpose behind this definition. What they call 'science' has the purpose of producing results (conclusions, etc.) that they approve of, and want to propagate. There is only one way to do things; and it's our way.
This reminds me of a game; the rules for a game; e.g. the rules for billiards... but science isn't a game, it's a universal human drive... the drive of curiosity, the drive to know things, the drive to discover. There can't be rigid rules for something as grand, as wide, as deep as that.

6. Nelson tells us that we need more than natural causes and supernatural causes; we need to add a third category; that of intelligence.

7. Nelson would prefer to divide causes not into natural vs supernatural; but natural vs intelligent.

8. He repeats the famous quotation by Arthur c. Clarke ''Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

- Hmm.... I wonder if that applies to the 'technology' involved in the creation of man by god? i.e. is the reason the majority of scientists say they don't see evidence for design, simply the fact the 'technology' is too advanced?

9. He quotes Wallace Arthur as saying the creation of body plans isn't explained by textbook evolution.

10. He quotes Arthur as saying, "what we (evolutionists) need is some creation science (i.e. of the good kind.) ie. some way to account for the creation of body plans.

- The trouble for the materialist is that there is no way this can happen in terms of undirected physics. ie. there can't be any 'creation science' within the materialist model. They will forever be seeking for it, as life transcends the realm of physics, or the merely material.

11. He presents a case for ID using the life cycle of the Monarch butterfly; claiming it required intelligence. (Seems persuasive to me.)

12. Nelson concludes by saying that many of the unsolved problems of E. theory might be the result of asking the wrong questions. i.e. because you ask a question doesn't mean there's an answ3er you're going to like. (e.g. how did life spontaneously emerge on earth)

Notes;
1. Paul Nelson - Understanding Intelligent design [video; available free online]
Northwest Creation Network
- you can access his lecture on the 'tree of life' at the same site; excellent as well.
2. I can't promise I got each quote exactly correct; though I'm confident I'm close.
3. Supranatural; same as supernatural
'Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Supra;
A prefix of Latin origin, meaning ‘above,’ ‘beyond.’
4. One of the claims you see repeated endlessly is that creationists just don't understand evolutionary theory. Well; I hate to bring some light into the conversation, but Paul Nelson understands both biology and E. theory. (It would be nice if the Darwinists would finally drop this fallacious argument.)
5.. I wrote this post while listening to 'Beyond the Missouri sky' by Charlie Haden and Pat Metheny; so if there are any errors in it, you can blame them. It got hard to concentrate at points. (Love the cut Spiritual)