# Is the Discovery Institute Against the Idea of Intelligent Design?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-the-discovery-institute-against-the-idea-of-intelligent-design/5437>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Design\
**Created:** [March 18, 2019, 9:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-the-discovery-institute-against-the-idea-of-intelligent-design/5437 "2019-03-18T21:22:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 13\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2019, 9:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-the-discovery-institute-against-the-idea-of-intelligent-design/5437/1 "2019-03-18T21:22:07Z")

</div>

The National Institutes of Health are for human health. The National Endowment for the Arts is for the idea of people doing art. The Teamsters Union is behind the idea of people driving trucks.

So is the Discovery Institute behind the idea of intelligent agents designing life? Apparently not.

> [@](#):
>
> Scientists and bioethicists who [promote the supposed propriety](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bioethicists-push-insurance-paid-eugenic-engineering/) of germ-line gene editing — once it is “safe,” don’t you know — are irresponsible. Other than perhaps the most rudimentary alterations, it will never be safe.  
> [Germ-Line Gene Editing Will Never Be Safe | Evolution News](https://evolutionnews.org/2019/03/germ-line-gene-editing-will-never-be-safe/)

Interesting. Apparently, an intelligent designer can not safely alter a genome. EVER!! Perhaps Behe’s book should have been “Designer Devolves” because a designer can not safely alter genomes.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AllenWitmerMiller](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/allenwitmermiller/32/2519_2.png) [@AllenWitmerMiller](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AllenWitmerMiller)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2019, 11:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-the-discovery-institute-against-the-idea-of-intelligent-design/5437/2 "2019-03-18T23:49:09Z")

</div>

I’ll take a wild guess and assume that the most dedicated ID’ists would make an exception for omniscient, omnipotent intelligent designers.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 12:10am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-the-discovery-institute-against-the-idea-of-intelligent-design/5437/3 "2019-03-19T00:10:47Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> So is the Discovery Institute behind the idea of intelligent agents designing life?

It is worse than that.

If we go by all known methods of design, they are materialistic and mechanistic. And the DI strongly against anything that is materialistic and mechanistic.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T.j\_Runyon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t.j_runyon/32/9662_2.png) [@T.j\_Runyon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T.j_Runyon)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 12:16am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-the-discovery-institute-against-the-idea-of-intelligent-design/5437/4 "2019-03-19T00:16:43Z")

</div>

They often argue our everyday experience tells us intelligence do these sort of things. Well our everyday experience also tells us minds are dependent on brains but they are positing a disembodied mind. Our everyday experience tells us that designers need materials to accomplish their design. They can’t just poof into existence. ID violates the inductive logic rule of total evidence. They leave out other evidence that brings their explanation into doubt.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ashwin\_s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ashwin_s/32/4017_2.png) [@Ashwin\_s](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ashwin_s)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 3:54am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-the-discovery-institute-against-the-idea-of-intelligent-design/5437/5 "2019-03-19T03:54:03Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Interesting. Apparently, an intelligent designer can not safely alter a genome. EVER!!

To be fair, they are referring to human designers.

And as of now, human beings don’t know enough to predict the side effects of altering genes.

I would be very wary of any genetic change that effects the germ line. Banning such gene alterations (that can be inherited) would not be a bad idea.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T.j\_Runyon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t.j_runyon/32/9662_2.png) [@T.j\_Runyon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T.j_Runyon)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 10:22am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-the-discovery-institute-against-the-idea-of-intelligent-design/5437/6 "2019-03-19T10:22:04Z")

</div>

> [@Ashwin\_s](#):
>
> To be fair, they are referring to human designers.

ID proponents make all their inferences to design based on what humans do.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ashwin\_s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ashwin_s/32/4017_2.png) [@Ashwin\_s](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ashwin_s)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 10:24am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-the-discovery-institute-against-the-idea-of-intelligent-design/5437/7 "2019-03-19T10:24:01Z")

</div>

> [@T.j\_Runyon](#):
>
> ID proponents make all their inferences to design based on what humans do

how is this relevant to the topic?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T.j\_Runyon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t.j_runyon/32/9662_2.png) [@T.j\_Runyon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T.j_Runyon)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 10:25am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-the-discovery-institute-against-the-idea-of-intelligent-design/5437/8 "2019-03-19T10:25:03Z")

</div>

> [@Ashwin\_s](#):
>
> how is this relevant to the topic?

Um, how is it not?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T.j\_Runyon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t.j_runyon/32/9662_2.png) [@T.j\_Runyon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T.j_Runyon)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 10:28am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-the-discovery-institute-against-the-idea-of-intelligent-design/5437/9 "2019-03-19T10:28:07Z")

</div>

T shared something that shows intelligent agents can’t mess with genomes without messing it up. You said they are talking about humans to weaken T’s argument. But ID proponents appeal to human designers to make their arguments. Looks like designers cant do the very thing ID proposes.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ashwin\_s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ashwin_s/32/4017_2.png) [@Ashwin\_s](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ashwin_s)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 11:00am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-the-discovery-institute-against-the-idea-of-intelligent-design/5437/10 "2019-03-19T11:00:34Z")

</div>

> [@T.j\_Runyon](#):
>
> T shared something that shows intelligent agents can’t mess with genomes without messing it up. You said they are talking about humans to weaken T’s argument. But ID proponents appeal to human designers to make their arguments.

They argue that human beings messing with genomes is risky due to unforeseen side effects.Human beings don’t know enough about the genome to manipulate it.

The argument has nothing to do with IDs argument for Intelligent design. ID points to human experience of complex arrangements with function. In every case where the origins of such an arrangement is directly known, the origin is design by an intelligent Agent.

Edit: Since ID scientists don’t claim that human beings made the genome, the ability/lack of ability of human beings to manipulate Genomes doesnt make much of a difference to the argument.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T.j\_Runyon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t.j_runyon/32/9662_2.png) [@T.j\_Runyon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T.j_Runyon)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 11:08am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-the-discovery-institute-against-the-idea-of-intelligent-design/5437/11 "2019-03-19T11:08:43Z")

</div>

You’re totally missing the point. I’m super busy today. I’ll try to respond later

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 3:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-the-discovery-institute-against-the-idea-of-intelligent-design/5437/12 "2019-03-19T15:08:39Z")

</div>

> [@AllenWitmerMiller](#):
>
> I’ll take a wild guess and assume that the most dedicated ID’ists would make an exception for omniscient, omnipotent intelligent designers.

I think we all know what’s behind the fig leaf. 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 3:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-the-discovery-institute-against-the-idea-of-intelligent-design/5437/13 "2019-03-19T15:15:42Z")

</div>

> [@Ashwin\_s](#):
>
> To be fair, they are referring to human designers.

To be fair, they use humans as their standard for a model designer.

> [@Ashwin\_s](#):
>
> And as of now, human beings don’t know enough to predict the side effects of altering genes.

As an aside, we do know what some alterations would do. If we alter one allele to match another existing allele we know what that allele will do. For example, if we alter the cancer causing mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 to match the sequences from healthy alleles we know the person carrying those altered alleles will be healthy, normal, and have a much lower risk of breast cancer. If we could make those changes now, it would be a massive help to the human population.

The problem is that the technology hasn’t matured to the point where we can reliably make large and specific changes, and do so in all cells targeted. On top of that, there is still the risk of off target changes where modifications are made elsewhere in the genome where they are not intended. The changes themselves can be extremely safe with known outcomes, but the technology isn’t quite there.