The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Talk:Intelligent design

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

By most, Intelligent Design is considered a scientific theory, an alternative to Evolution. A theory is only scientific if it makes testable predictions, so I think we need to add that section to the page, prominently, and begin to stock it. Many of the predictions will come from Creation as a whole, such as cosmological implications and predictions therein for the motions of galaxies wrt the Hubble Constant, for example. Without this section, Intelligent Design belongs on a Creation History Wiki, not a science wiki. Nobody wants that... Deans 14:29, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Hi guys, Since I'm new to the community I do not know much about what I can say and what I can't say. Please, do not think anything I say here as offensive, I just have to learn how to put things. This said, I'd like to pursue my goal as stated in my email to Mr. Ashcroft; i.e.: the improvement of articles. I think that the whole concept of a CPOV-site is a great alternative to (in my opinion) biased information given on projects such as WikiPedia. But to even more improve the credibility of articles such as these I think it would be wise to use other references than the Bible as a proof for theories such as Intelligent Design. Not because the Bible is in itself lacking as a scientific document, but because not only in our (Creationist) community people will be more convinced by theories stated, but people outside the community might be as well be inspired by our views. Marten15 17:50, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

ID and Creationism

Should we touch on the dispute between ID proponents and evolution proponents, about whether ID = Creation Science? The NCSE refers to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism", indicating their position that ID is nothing other than Creationism wearing a disguise. My thought is that they are confounding (perhaps deliberately) motivation with methodology.

Perhaps a personal anecdote will shed some light on this. When I worked at ABC, one of my tasks was to test software. So I would look hard to find some way of running the software to "break" it: to make the program crash or give incorrect results. My motivation, however, was not to embarrass the programmers in front of the boss or to make the project take longer to complete. Rather, it was to protect the development team as a whole from the embarrassment of delivering a faulty product, as well as to protect the user community from the inconvenience or distress of using a faulty program. Neither my boss nor the programmers ever brought up my motivation when it came time for me to submit test results. All they cared about was: "Is the program perfect, or are there reproducible errors in it?"

If a scientist says evolution can or cannot explain a phenomenon, it does not (or should not) matter what his motivation is. As long as his data collection methods and reasoning are sound, other scientists should respect his work. If they find errors, they should point them out; and other scientists should learn about these errors. It is this approach that distinguishes modern science from the conjectural or speculative approach taken by Aristotle; I believe it was Galileo who first tested the "heavy things fall faster" idea nearly two millenniums after it was first adopted by natural philosophers. But many times in the history of science, pioneers have met with resistance from the mainstream; supporters of the established paradigm would refuse even to consider or examine contrary evidence or reasoning. Pasteur's germ theory of disease comes to mind as an example. --Ed Poor 17:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I certainly respect your analysis. I would also say that creationists often have to ensure that they don't confound motive with method. I say that, not because I have to accuse anybody of that particular sin, but only because the temptation to "sink to their level" can be very great sometimes. Ask me, on my Talk page, how I feel after a typical message cycle on OriginsTalk.
Now in answer to your real question, which is whether you ought to put something into the Essay namespace: Here is our rule on Essays. If you have authoritative citations to support a contention that the NCSE are deliberately confounding motive with method, then you ought to put something into an article that says, "So-and-so says such-and-such and has the tapes/screenshots/whatever to prove it." If, on the other hand, it is your own research or thoughts, and wouldn't fit as the definition of a term that a lot of people ought to know, then you should write an Essay. (If you want to know what I use the Essay namespace for, you might want to search Special:Allpages for all essays. I've written most of them, and I always tag my essays with my username.)--TemlakosTalk 18:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Im not trying to attack anyone here but, why is intelligent design scientific? why only some things can be better explained by ID? and what about the bad design that perfectly fits with the prediction from evolution, but in the theory of ID, it has no clear answer on that one?

Also why no research have been done? ID movement lost so much money in their political campaign to promote teaching ID on schools, wouldnt it be more useful if they invested in research instead? and then try it to publish their research on scientific peer reviewed journals to get more aproval so it would have more support?

And another one, isnt the basis for intelligent design religious?

In the leaked Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, however, the supporters of the movement were told:

"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

If its not science then it has no place on education, and im not biased in anyway, in fact if there really is intelligent design in nature i would be thrilled to know, and i think many scientists would too if it were really scientific, because the truth is that the overwhelming scientific consensus reject intelligent design as science, and many of them have even called it junk science or pseudo-science. Peace and knowledge Ryosuke1208 09:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is why Cicero is important, he makes the Intelligent Design argument as a Pagan Gentile before Yeshua was born.--MithirandirOlorin 13:50, 26 May 2011 (PDT)

More Examples

I think a great addition to Creationwiki would be more pages on Intelligent Design examples. Intelligent Design would make a good category I think for housing pages relating to Intelligent Design. Some examples that could be made:

  • Flower mantises, particularly the Pink Orchid Mantis
  • Lygodium Spider Moth
  • Macropina microstoma
  • Ladybird Mimic Spider
  • Tree Stump Spider
  • Euplectella aspergillum

I'll add more possibilities as I notice them. --Jzyehoshua 02:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)

This page posts some decent examples from time to time although I don't like their citation of Ron Wyatt claims. --Jzyehoshua 03:02, 7 November 2013 (EST)

Also Phalera Bucephala or the Buff-Tip Moth. --Jzyehoshua 12:14, 13 January 2014 (EST)