Intelligent Design Theory – An Overview

http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_idtheoryoverview.htm

http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info/Index.htm

Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, which the Discovery Institute states, "holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection," http://www.intelligentdesign.org/.

Here's 8 bullet topics for evidence for testable means that would support Intelligent Design Theory:

1. Complex Specified Information (CSI); No Free Lunch theorems (http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/complex-specified-information-csi-an-explanation-of-specified-complexity/; http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/response-to-the-mark-perakh-essay-there-is-a-free-lunch-after-all-william-dembskis-wrong-answers-to-irrelevant-questions/)

2. Irreducible Complexity (http://www.scribd.com/doc/106728402/The-Bacterial-Flagellum; http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/irreducible-complexity/)

3. Quantum Biology (http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n1/full/nphys2474.html)

4. Natural Genetic Engineering (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/epigenetics-iii-epigeneti_b_1683713.html; http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdf)

5. Cell Cognition (cognition (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/cell-cognition_b_1354889.html)

6. Origin of Life research based upon Information Theory (https://asunews.asu.edu/20121212_dawnoflife; http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.4803v2.pdf; http://www.livescience.com/25453-life-origin-reframed.html)

7. Bioinformatics (http://designinference.com/dembski-on-intelligent-design/dembski-writings/; http://www.evoinfo.org/index/).

8. Predictions based upon there being multiple simultaneous mutation events as opposed to gradual successive modifications one mutation at a time.

In re item #3, quantum biology, see my recent post on the ID - Official Page, here, https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/597929196917352/.



The Argument for God’s Existence from the Appearance of Design in Biology

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-god-real-the-argument-for-gods-existence-from-the-appearance-of-design-in-biology/#sthash.VLjoHQC5.dpuf

(1) Human artifacts (like watches) are products of intelligent design

(2) Biological systems and cellular micro-machines resemble human artifacts

(3) It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, biological systems and cellular micro-machines are the product of intelligent design

(4) But, biological systems and cellular micro-machines are vastly more complex and sophisticated than human artifacts

(5) It is reasonable to conclude, then, the designer responsible for such biological systems and cellular micro-machines must be vastly more intelligent and sophisticated than any human designer

(6) God is vastly more intelligent and sophisticated than any human designer

(7) God is, therefore, the most reasonable candidate for the Intelligent Designer responsible for biological systems and cellular micro-machines

Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box (IV, 192-193).

Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity. The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself—not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day

Intelligent Design is not about God it is a MECHANISM to produce coded sequential information and integrated operational functionality. One can only falsify ID by demonstrating that intelligence does not produce what is required to fulfill the two phenomena I gave earlier...ID is not a person, it is a conditional requirement.

ID is not about proving God exists, it is about what is NECESSARY to produce information and operational functionality, until you can prove otherwise an intelligently directed cause will REMAIN the BEST explanation in light of your complete FAILURE to provide an acceptable alternative...

Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for "God"?

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341

"The most important difference [between modern intelligent design theory and Paley's arguments] is that [intelligent design] is limited to design itself; I strongly emphasize that it is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paley's was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument. But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. This while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's phrase hypothesis non fingo. (Michael Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis," Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), pg. 165, emphasis added)

"Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God, it doesn't require it, because the scientific theory doesn't tell you who the designer is. While most people - including myself - will think the designer is God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien or something odd like that." (Michael Behe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 02/08/01).

"One of the worries about intelligent design is that it will jettison much of what is accepted in science, and that an “ID-based curriculum” will look very different from current science curricula. Although intelligent design has radical implications for science, I submit that it does not have nearly as radical implications for science education. First off, intelligent design is not a form of anti-evolutionism. Intelligent design does not claim that living things came together suddenly in their present form through the efforts of a supernatural creator. Intelligent design is not and never will be a doctrine of creation." (William Dembski, No Free Lunch, pg. 314, emphasis added)

"The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer." (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 197)

"Intelligent design is modest in what it attributes to the designing intelligence responsible for the specified complexity in nature. For instance, design theorists recognize that the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy." (William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 42)

"The most obvious difference is that scientific creationism has prior religious commitments whereas intelligent design does not. ... Intelligent design ... has no prior religious commitments and interprets the data of science on generally accepted scientific principles. In particular, intelligent design does not depend on the biblical account of creation." (William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 40)

"Intelligent design begins with data that scientists observe in the laboratory and nature, identifies in them patterns known to signal intelligent causes and thereby ascertains whether a phenomenon was designed. For design theorists, the conclusion of design constitutes an inference from data, not a deduction from religious authority." (William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 42-43)

"Natural causes are too stupid to keep pace with intelligent causes. Intelligent design theory provides a rigorous scientific demonstration of this long-standing intuition. Let me stress, the complexity-specification criterion is not a principle that comes to us demanding our unexamined acceptance--it is not an article of faith. Rather it is the outcome of a careful and sustained argument about the precise interrelationships between necessity, chance and design." (William Dembski, No Free Lunch, pg. 223)

"ID is not an interventionist theory. Its only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable. All the design could therefore have emerged through a cosmic evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang. What's more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe. ID has no doctrine of creation. Scott and Branch at best could argue that many of the ID proponents are religious believers in a deity, but that has no bearing on the content of the theory. As for being “vague” about what happened and when, that is utterly misleading. ID claims that many naturalistic evolutionary scenarios (like the origin of life) are unsupported by evidence and that we simply do not know the answer at this time to what happened. This is not a matter of being vague but rather of not pretending to knowledge that we don't have."(William Dembski, Commentary on Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch's "Guest Viewpoint: 'Intelligent design' Not Accepted by Most Scientists, emphasis added)


Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

William A. Dembski

Abstract: For the scientific community intelligent design represents creationism's latest grasp at scientific legitimacy. Accordingly, intelligent design is viewed as yet another ill-conceived attempt by creationists to straightjacket science within a religious ideology. But in fact intelligent design can be formulated as a scientific theory having empirical consequences and devoid of religious commitments. Intelligent design can be unpacked as a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. In my paper I shall (1) show how information can be reliably detected and measured, and (2) formulate a conservation law that governs the origin and flow of information. My broad conclusion is that information is not reducible to natural causes, and that the origin of information is best sought in intelligent causes. Intelligent design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow.