1) Difference from concepts: the very concept of design is different from creation, as Dembski explains: "Creation is always about the source of being of the world. Intelligent design, as the science that studies signs of intelligence, is about arrangements of preexisting materials that point to a designing intelligence."

2) Difference from goals:Creationism is ultimately about the defense of a particular interpretation of religious texts, hence, why dominant scientific themes in creation science, are things like the age of the earth etc. Where as, Intelligent Design attempts to build a rigorous scientific method for detecting design, and applying this to patterns in nature.

Any thoughts?

They are all failed attempts to align religion with mordern science

Good morning mk,

Do you think it is possible for one to 'create' without considering the design of what is to be created?

Intelligent Design is just creationism couched in big grammer. The concept only came into existence when some American fanatics wanted to pretend creationism was a scientific theory so they could teach their religious nonsense in public school science classrooms.

ID is not science. It is concept that has more holes in than a laundry basket. No serious minded biologists give the idea any credit, and it can be easily disproved by simple experiments or just a few moments thought.

striktlymi: Good morning mk,

Do you think it is possible for one to 'create' without considering the design of what is to be created?

Yes. When I "create" poo in the morning, I never consider the design.

alfaman2:

Yes. When I "create" poo in the morning, I never consider the design.

Lololol. *Back to watching from the sidelines*

Reyginus: Lololol. *Back to watching from the sidelines*

Hey Rey,

Very funny but making poo is part of a design which definitely is not our 'creation'.

alfaman2:

Yes. When I "create" poo in the morning, I never consider the design.

u didnt create pool, u only deposited it from ur system. U neva knew the color or the size of d poo

striktlymi:

Hey Rey,

Very funny but making poo is part of a design which definitely is not our 'creation'.

Lol. But the dude has a point in the sense we don't conceive a particular poo design in mind, when we drop the ugly thing.

Reyginus: Lol. But the dude has a point in the sense we don't conceive a particular poo design in mind, when we drop the ugly thing.

There will be a point if and only if we can demonstrate that we designed the system responsible for the poo. Is there any point in claiming another's design?

striktlymi: Good morning mk,

Do you think it is possible for one to 'create' without considering the design of what is to be created?

It is..Creativity complex permit creation without design complex e.g Language,Music etc

Evil Brain: Intelligent Design is just creationism couched in big grammer. The concept only came into existence when some American fanatics wanted to pretend creationism was a scientific theory so they could teach their religious nonsense in public school science classrooms.

ID is not science. It is concept that has more holes in than a laundry basket. No serious minded biologists give the idea any credit, and it can be easily disproved by simple experiments or just a few moments thought.

Dont you think that scientific methodology havent been applied to it? Or do you want to disprove it?

mkmyers45: It is..Creativity complex permit creation without design complex e.g Language,Music etc

I don't think so! Before any thing is made there must be a design. Even language and music have their designs. I believe the ieh here is what constitute a design.

A design is not just something we can draw or see. It is also about having a plan...which can be in someone's mind when making something. Language and music follow a set pattern which is a direct result of some careful planning and thought process.

I think intelligent design is a bad argument for God. Because it acknowledges preexisting immutable uncaused abstract principles that govern Cosmos (includes Multiverses), to which God himself bows to.

striktlymi:

I don't think so! Before any thing is made there must be a design. Even language and music have their designs. I believe the ieh here is what constitute a design.

A design is not just something we can draw or see. It is also about having a plan...which can be in someone's mind when making something. Language and music follow a set pattern which is a direct result of some careful planning and thought process.

If you conceed to the almost infinite nature of musical tunes, then you will understand the complex i speak of...Ask a class of 3-4 year olds to sing or make music, can you possible explain the careful planning behind the result?

mkmyers45: If you conceed to the almost infinite nature of musical tunes, then you will understand the complex i speak of...Ask a class of 3-4 year olds to sing or make music, can you possible explain the careful planning behind the result?

Nah that example is more like the 'poo' thing that was earlier talked about. There is already a system in place which enables the brain to work with the vocal chord of that child in order to perform the activity you mentioned.

The planning behind that result has to do with the harmonious working of the brain of that child with its vocal chord. There has to be a 'system' which enables that child differentiate between talking and singing. The child needs not be aware that what it does is singing but the system 'hardwired' into that child enables it to produce the desired sound.

Like I said the example is hardly appropriate cause the design is already in place. Why not try another example e.g making of a vehicle. Though this is different from creating something but it should suffice for the purpose of this discuss.

Intelligent design (ID) and creationism are so intertwined that one CANNOT exist without the other.

For any atheist or theist to try to separate these two is really disturbing to reason.

Repetitive patterns, which can also be termed design, (depending on the context) based on the constant composition of matter is what we observe in nature according to quantum physics and nuclear chemistry.

Nature exist without intelligent control, exclusive of the parts colonized by the sapiens.

striktlymi:

There will be a point if and only if we can demonstrate that we designed the system responsible for the poo.

I think you should consider this statement. From his point of view, that will be unnecessary since he doesn't appeal to design in the first place.

Reyginus: I think you should consider this statement. From his point of view, that will be unnecessary since he doesn't appeal to design in the first place.

The poo thingy does not satisfy the 'parameter' of the question asked.

striktlymi:

The poo thingy does not satisfy the 'parameter' of the question asked.

You should have mentioned the above before getting to this point in the discourse.
+back to watching from the sidelines+

Reyginus: You should have mentioned the above before getting to this point in the discourse.
+back to watching from the sidelines+

Sorry man, I thought you knew!

striktlymi:

Sorry man, I thought you knew!

Lolol.*why is he telling me sorry?*
Anyway. Good evening and thank you, Mr striklymi.

Reyginus: Lolol.*why is he telling me sorry?*
Anyway. Good evening and thank you, Mr striklymi.

Good evening to you too Mr. Reyginus.


Thank you!

mkmyers45: 1) Difference from concepts: the very concept of design is different from creation, as Dembski explains: "Creation is always about the source of being of the world. Intelligent design, as the science that studies signs of intelligence, is about arrangements of preexisting materials that point to a designing intelligence."

This is a false distinction. Intelligent design is not science. It is a religious idea attempting to masquerade as science. After all, creation is also the arrangement of pre-existing materials. e.g Achebe's works were created from pre-existing words in English and other languages.

mkmyers45: 2) Difference from goals:Creationism is ultimately about the defense of a particular interpretation of religious texts, hence, why dominant scientific themes in creation science, are things like the age of the earth etc. Where as, Intelligent Design attempts to build a rigorous scientific method for detecting design, and applying this to patterns in nature.

The phrase "creation science" is an oxymoron. So far, the attempts made by Intelligent Design advocates has failed and hasn't even been shown to be useful.

striktlymi:

The poo thingy does not satisfy the 'parameter' of the question asked.

Are you saying that poo is not designed?

Kay 17: I think intelligent design is a bad argument for God. Because it acknowledges preexisting immutable uncaused abstract principles that govern Cosmos (includes Multiverses), to which God himself bows to.

Intelligent Design isn't an argument for God, its a theory on how living things originate.

thehomer:

This is a false distinction. Intelligent design is not science. It is a religious idea attempting to masquerade as science. After all, creation is also the arrangement of pre-existing materials. e.g Achebe's works were created from pre-existing words in English and other languages.

Wrong ! You failed to show how it isn't science and how it is a religious idea. You fail to note what I'd theorists have reiterated, that I'd notes some things are designed and brings design detection to the question of life's origins. If it is a religious idea it should deal with the supernatural, God, rites etc things which have NEVER been associated with it. You are simply spewing out the nonsense die-hard evolutionists have told you which you have FAILED to critically analyse especially by taking the ID theorists rebutalls into consideration.

Uyi Iredia:

Intelligent Design isn't an argument for God, its a theory on how living things originate.

It attempts to explain natural life an intelligent effect of ultimately a supernatural being.

Uyi Iredia:

Wrong ! You failed to show how it isn't science and how it is a religious idea. You fail to note what I'd theorists have reiterated, that I'd notes some things are designed and brings design detection to the question of life's origins. If it is a religious idea it should deal with the supernatural, God, rites etc things which have NEVER been associated with it. You are simply spewing out the nonsense die-hard evolutionists have told you which you have FAILED to critically analyse especially by taking the ID theorists rebutalls into consideration.

When the @poster lucidly explains what he means by ' intelligent design'' i am sure he would get the ''critical analysis'' that you so desire!