Intelligent Design (ECP forum rules apply)*

While not a ID proponent myself, I went at the christianforums.net debate section about evolution out of curiosity, and found the arguments and resources there lacking, with points such as ID not having a impact in research or incentiving climate change denial being used by oponents.

I think it is vital to distinguish between the DI research that basically disproves the concept that evolution in the large happened by random mutation followed by natural selection (RM+NS), and the DI's Christian gloss put on those results.

Their hard science is presented without a mention of Christianity or God.

Personally, I would rather couple this science with the afterlife revealed by the bulk of NDE's. Indeed some former Christians have noted that their Christian upbringing had not lead them to a judgement that was applied by the person being judged, followed by the chance to reincarnate.

David

Meyer's latest book is "Return of the God Hypothesis"




Here is the full playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...mMWXg_FYaH

The book is about how the first scientists believed studying nature was a way to understand the works of God. But later because Darwin, Freud, and Marx answered the fundamental questions of humanity without God many people became atheists. Now because of the accumulation of scientific discoveries, the evidence for God is convincing.

The evidence he gives is:

• The universe had a beginning.
  
• It is fine tuned for the existence of life.
  
• The sudden information bursts needed for the origin of life and macroevolution are best explained by the action of intelligence.
  

He also points out that there is no conflict between religion and science.
He says:

The early scientists sought to understand God by studying the bible, and they saw nature as another "book" that revealed the mind of God. 

Studying nature was like studying the bible, studying / learning about God.

Science arose in Christian Europe and not in Egypt, China, or Ancient Greece because in Christian Europe:

People believed man was made in God's image, man's mind could understand the works of God's mind.

Original sin: man is imperfect, his mind is imperfect his theories need to be checked against the facts of nature. 

The ancient Greeks thought the world was perfectly logical and all you had to do was think logically and you could understand it from reason alone.

But in Christian Europe they believed the universe was created by God and He made choices in his creation so you had to make observations to see what was really done, you couldn't just theorize. 

The Christians believed universe was orderly because of natural laws made by God that could be understood by man.

Early scientists like Boyle, Kepler, and Newton used theological metaphors describing nature as a book, as a clock (a mechanism that showed evidence of design), and a realm (governed by natural laws).

Newton wrote:

I was less attracted by this book because he uses a lot of evidence from Cosmology to argue that the Big Bang happened in accordance with Genesis. My feeling is that physics at this level is really too uncertain. I'd rather he had stuck with the evolutionary issues - but maybe he just fancied another book!

David

This is where I'm at too. I've never really looked into this topic, but the associations discourage me a bit. At the same time, my biggest personal roadblock is that I just don't know enough about biology, hard science, etc., to even begin evaluating the claims.

But I'm open and I find it interesting that people here bring up this topic, it makes me curious, and I read their posts with interest. I'm happy to know there's another world here to explore potentially, and the fact that people here (and back at Skeptiko in the old day) whose intelligence I very much respect take the arguments seriously tells me there must be something worthwhile.

I suggest you try Michael Behe's "Darwin Devolved":

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Darwin-Devolves...B079L6RTNT

Any of us will help you out with the molecular biology, which is remarkably easy to grasp because you can almost forget about all the messy chemistry that underpins it all! It is worth the effort because it will totally remove any remaining niggling feeling that maybe the materialists are right

David

[Ninshub]

I don't have that niggling filling, but thanks for the recommendation anyway and your offer for help!

This is where I'm at too. I've never really looked into this topic, but the associations discourage me a bit. At the same time, my biggest personal roadblock is that I just don't know enough about biology, hard science, etc., to even begin evaluating the claims.

But I'm open and I find it interesting that people here bring up this topic, it makes me curious, and I read their posts with interest. I'm happy to know there's another world here to explore potentially, and the fact that people here (and back at Skeptiko in the old day) whose intelligence I very much respect take the arguments seriously tells me there must be something worthwhile.

It is precisely because of those associations that ID has not been (and probably never will be) taken seriously by those who don't follow the arguments.

People like Meyer and Behe are serious scientists who are also Christians and also funded by Christian organisations. That's a pity in my view because they have important things to say which, if taken seriously, could change the conversation radically. Meyer has often stressed the point that, although his personal opinion leads him to believe that the God of his religion is the designer, the science does not offer any such conclusion. All it says is that there is evidence of design and, having read some of that evidence, I have to agree. Yet if you look for debates on Youtube, evolutionists are either reluctant to debate him or, when they do, they focus their argument on his religion rather than his science. That does nothing to help the uncommitted and interested observer.

It is precisely because of those associations that ID has not been (and probably never will be) taken seriously by those who don't follow the arguments.

People like Meyer and Behe are serious scientists who are also Christians and also funded by Christian organisations. That's a pity in my view because they have important things to say which, if taken seriously, could change the conversation radically. Meyer has often stressed the point that, although his personal opinion leads him to believe that the God of his religion is the designer, the science does not offer any such conclusion. All it says is that there is evidence of design and, having read some of that evidence, I have to agree. Yet if you look for debates on Youtube, evolutionists are either reluctant to debate him or, when they do, they focus their argument on his religion rather than his science. That does nothing to help the uncommitted and interested observer.

Bryan Callen had Myers and Shermer on his show, it was a pretty cordial discussion though it felt rather "American" that Shermer peppered in political stuff - thankfully not too much but it's a pet peeve of mine when people do this.

Sadly I also felt they never dug deep enough into anything, getting stuck on a kind of basic level.

That said I thought Myers did a good job presenting his case.

Max Planck

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

It is precisely because of those associations that ID has not been (and probably never will be) taken seriously by those who don't follow the arguments.

People like Meyer and Behe are serious scientists who are also Christians and also funded by Christian organisations. That's a pity in my view because they have important things to say which, if taken seriously, could change the conversation radically. Meyer has often stressed the point that, although his personal opinion leads him to believe that the God of his religion is the designer, the science does not offer any such conclusion. All it says is that there is evidence of design and, having read some of that evidence, I have to agree. Yet if you look for debates on Youtube, evolutionists are either reluctant to debate him or, when they do, they focus their argument on his religion rather than his science. That does nothing to help the uncommitted and interested observer.

It's sort of a self-fulfilling phenomenon; the only significant source of funding for research studies into the reality of ID has been ultimately just followers of the Christian church, who are emotionally repelled by the nihilistic implications of Darwinism. Academia and other sectors of society are actively hostile to or indifferent to ID and of course won't fund any research in it. ESP, PSI and paranormal phenomena in general are in an even worse funding situation, since there isn't even one big organization with a stake in it.

 followers of the Christian church, who are emotionally repelled by the nihilistic implications of Darwinism.

There are many christians who believe in evolution and it doesn't necessarily imply nihilism.  It tends to be fundamentalists who don't because of Genesis saying that God made all the creatures after their own kind.

Personally one of the reasons I think ID must be true is because we have no way to explain why anything exists - why is there a universe?. Even if the universe were a quantum fluctuation, the laws of quantum mechanics are still something, why would they exist?

To my way of thinking the best answer (hypothesis, theory whatever) is that consciousness exists outside of space time and is responsible for creating space and time. 

The evidence that consciousness exists outside of space and time includes: the universe seems to have been fine tuned by a consciousness, quantum mechanics requires consciousness to collapse a wave function (you can't have matter unless you have consciousness first), and ESP seems to be independent of space and time.

That leaves unanswered the question of where consciousness came from, but I suspect we don't really comprehend what it means to exist outside of space and time and if we did, we would recognize the question of why does anything (consciousness) exists doesn't pertain in that realm. There might be other important questions but until we leave the physical existence we won't really comprehend that realm.