Definition of ID

[cwes99_03]

The following is an excerpt from a paper found at
Intelligent Design Network
more specifically

John Calvert Remarks to Penn. Education Committee

It is from this document that I quote the following.

Thirdly, I would make clear what we mean by “intelligent design.” The present bill does not define “intelligent design.” This worries me because there is significant misunderstanding about the nature of its scientific claims. At its core, ID is merely an inference of design that arises from an observation and analysis of certain natural phenomena, particularly complex bio-chemical systems. Most scientists agree that these systems look designed, but claim that the appearance of design is just an illusion that can be explained away by natural selection. At its core evolution postulates that life is not designed, but rather is the result of “unguided evolutionary change.” So, in essence ID is merely the scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolution.

National Science Standards published by the National Academy of Science actually teach that natural phenomena lack the attribute of design. ID scientists simply disagree and support their disagreement with empirical scientific evidence and analysis.

Further ID is a very limited historical hypothesis that does not expect to ever be absolutely proved from a scientific standpoint. It is a purely theoretical claim that seeks to challenge rather than to replace its scientific competitor. It makes no statement about the identity of any possible designer because the available data does not permit a scientific response to that question. The utility of the design hypothesis is not confined to origins. It is a powerful working hypothesis that is now being used in scientific investigation to understand and “reverse engineer” the “architecture” of the genome.

How I understand this is ID is not even saying that there is a creator, but that looking at the makeup of things, they appear to look like something that was created.

Created by whom? They don't know, can't say, or leave it up to each individual to decide that. They just say that it appears to be created.

Personally, I could present more scientific evidence for Creationism.

[Tormod]

Good post.

Originally Posted by John Calvert

Most scientists agree that these systems look designed, but claim that the appearance of design is just an illusion that can be explained away by natural selection.

It's statements like this that shows the endless arrogance of certain parts of the ID movement.

Who are "most scientists"? I can accept that *some* scientists will say that the systems in question look designed, but to jump from there to include "most", and then categorically state that they will blame it on "natural selection" is laughable.

It simply shows what we already know - that the ID movement has a huge problem with evolution and want to prove that if something else isn't 100% proven then ID must be correct, and evolution can only be explained by accepting ID.

[cwes99_03]

Actually,

It is a purely theoretical claim that seeks to challenge rather than to replace its scientific competitor

Read it all moderator

[C1ay]

Is there a point in starting yet another thread on this instead of using one of the many threads already started?

[cwes99_03]

I only started it because many, myself included, were a bit confused about what ID proposed. If you would like, you could rerout everyone from here to one of the other forums and close this one, but leave it open so that people might read it first and understand.