Why I Am an ID Proponent

Conversation Side Conversation
1

I’d like to thank @swamidass for asking why I am an ID proponent. It gave me an opportunity to not only think about it but to also generate a response that may lead to greater mutual understanding and respect.

Because i believe that design is obvious.

That attempts to explain away the appearance of design fail to do so.

The only contender for explaining the appearance of design is Darwinism. If Darwinism is dead, why does it not follow that the only serious contender for explaining the appearance of design in nature is also dead?

This, by the way, is why I find it difficult to jump on the “Darwinism is Dead” bandwagon. It fails to offer an alternative explanation for the appearance of design such as the one that was provided by Darwin’s theory.

There is no appearance of design in nature. More specifically, there is no appearance of design in biology. Contra Darwin. Contra Dawkins. etc. That’s one way to approach it. Who are the proponents of that position?

There is an appearance of design in biology, and neutral evolution, the theory that killed Darwinism, gives an explanation for the appearance of design in biology that can permit one to be “an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” That’s another way to approach it. Who are the proponents of that position?

The appearance of design is not illusory, but real. What explains the very real design in nature? If someone has a better alternative than “Intelligent Design” I don’t know what it is.

Now I’ll submit that these may not be the sole factors entering into my position as an ID proponent. But I do think that they are reasons why I am an ID proponent.

Now, given that I have provided what I think is a serious and reasoned response to the questions that @swamidass asked, I would like to ask Joshua why he is not an ID proponent.I welcome him to start another thread if he feels that is appropriate.

1 Like
2

@mung Does what is true impact your thinking?

1 Like
3

Very much so.

I believe that both atheists and theists agree that it is morally wrong to assent to something that is false and deny what is true.

I believe it is true that neither the universe nor the earth is 6000 years old

I believe it is true that Jesus returned when he said he would return.

So not only does what I believe to be true impact my thinking, so does what I believe to be a corollary of what I believe to be true impact my thinking.

If the earth is not 6000 years old … then …

If Jesus returned when he said he would return … then …

1 Like
4

I agree that God created us, and in this sense He designed us all. Great disservice to this truth is done by incorrect arguments for design. God designed us, but not because 1+1=3. It makes no sense to be part of a movement that doesn’t realize they are arguing that 1+1=3.

Why am I not an ID proponent? I have no need for poor arguments for design. I am not sure why you do. It does not seem you are willing to agree with any of their arguments.

1 Like
5

Neither do I.

Perhaps it is because, like you, I do not have a need for poor arguments for design.

In spite of what I just wrote?

6

That would be my position.

Evolved things look very different from designed things. So biological organisms are not designed.

Whether nature itself is designed, in something like the Deist sense, I guess I’ll take a pass on that.

2 Likes
7

That’s interesting. I think it’s obvious that I have looked much more closely than you have, and yet I note time and time again that the complexities of biology are only consistent with iterative processes that we humans don’t associate with design.

What do you think accounts for that disparity?

1 Like
8

You believe that both design and evolution occur by trial and error, don’t you?

9

What a coincidence. That’s the same reason my 5 year old niece gives for thinking clouds which look like bunnies must be designed.

You mean to you, personally, with zero scientific training or experience.

Since ID continually refuses to define “design” then “design” can cover the results of naturally occurring non-intelligent processes. Natural arches bridge in Utah is a real design by ID’s criteria.

3 Likes
10

Yes. But design, as used by ID proponents, involves advanced planning.

Crafting, on the other hand, need not involve advanced planning.

1 Like
11

Excellent point. IDers only identify a few specific things which look "designed " and ignore the other 99.9% of nature which looks like kludged together, just barely working, not designed things.

1 Like
12

Once again, which of the ID arguments do you actually support? The appearance of design, outside of scientific study, is not actually ID. I’m honestly confused by you @Mung. It seems like you are trying to occupy a middle ground that may not actually exist.

It seems like you are saying you are an ID proponent that doesn’t actually agree with any of their scientific arguments. What am I missing/ Do you actually agree with any of their arguments?

2 Likes
13

I do not disagree with you! I may in fact be trying to occupy a middle ground. It may in fact be the case that no middle ground is to be found. But I think you have indeed managed to identify the best description of where I stand. I am my own man. Hopefully that leads to progress in mutually understanding each other.

I absolutely welcome from you any clarifying questions you care to ask. I have nothing to hide.

As a beginning, the arguments which point out the insufficiencies of Darwinism. We ought to be able to find common ground there, and if not I’d like to understand why not.

And I am likewise confused by you!

That poor arguments for ID exist is not, in my mind, a sufficient reason to reject intelligent design. And yet that appears to be the only reason you have given. You do not say that ID is not science. You do not say that ID is not testable. You do not say that ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. You do not say that ID is theologically untenable. You offer a single solitary reason for why you are not an ID proponent. Bad arguments.

Yet bad arguments exist on all sides of this controversy!

There are bad arguments for evolution. It does not follow that evolution is false.

In closing:

That would require that we enter into a discussion about which ID arguments are scientific and which are not. I’m willing to have that conversation.

1 Like
14

Which specific scientific arguments that they put forward do you agree with?

It is sufficient reason to reject ID, even if one agrees that God created us.

15

This simply invites the response that bad arguments for evolution are sufficient reason to reject evolution.

16

I would not associate with any organization that makes bad arguments for evolution. Why do you think I left BioLogos?

17

I do not claim to know which ID arguments are scientific and which are not. Given that you have not specified which ID arguments are scientific and which are not I cannot say.

18

I do not know why you let BioLogos. I am not a mind reader. :slight_smile:

But I can surmise that it was not because there was a disagreement over whether or not evolution is true. Did your experience there lead you to reject evolution?

Are you agreeing with me that bad arguments for evolution do not constitute sufficient grounds to reject evolution?

I’ll assume that you and I agree on that point. I certainly do not think that bad arguments for evolution constitute sufficient grounds to reject evolution.

Where we differ is that you seem to me to think that bad arguments for ID constitute sufficient grounds to reject ID. I do not reject evolution in spite of the bad arguments that are tossed up in favor of evolution. If I were to adopt your reasoning (as I am interpreting it), I should reject evolution.

19

I am a proponent of the claim that there is no appearance of design in nature. I am honestly, and I mean this literally, baffled by the claim. I simply do not share that view, or intuition, or whatever you might want to call it.

I look at something in nature not created by humans, such as rocks, or trees, or clouds, and I see nothing at all that makes me think of design. When I think of design, I think of the materials I see around me in my immediate surroundings. Buildings which are usually made of bricks or concrete, are usually big blocks of rectangular shape, with doors and windows made of square or rectangular pieces of glass or painted wood or plastic. Or cars, made of plastic and metal, painted with paint. Some times with advertisements on them. I look at my computer, made of plastic and metal and circuits, and it’s a huge collection of squares and rectangles made of materials I see nowhere else in nature, shaped in ways I see nowhere else in nature. They usually don’t have any intrinsic affinity to each other that make them attract or repel each other, but must be “forced” to fit together with other designed objects like nails, nuts and bolts, screws, tape, glue or what have you. When a madmande object breaks, someone has to come and fix it and put it back together.

I look at an organism like myself, or a dog, and I see a soft mushy chaotic mess of fluids, tissues, flexible, stretchy, often times smelly and sticky lump of matter that has this weird tendency to heal itself slowly when damaged, and things seem to naturally “stick together” into a seamless whole. I don’t see where the “design” is in this. Organisms grow in a way nothing that I know of as designed does.

The two things, life in nature, and man-made designs are completely separate and exceedlingly unlike in my view. I have never looked at something in biology and thought it “looked designed”. It looks designed to me is pretty much like saying “it is made of polished smooth pieces of plastic and metal, held together by screws, and run by batteries or a combustion engine made of a large block of metal with metal pistons”.

4 Likes
20

The existence of bad arguments for design isn’t grounds for rejecting ID. The absence of any good arguments is grounds, however, at least provisionally.

5 Likes