I am confused what intelligent design theory stand to be?

I really can't get how it should be called - theory, idea, hypothesis or differently ??? Is "theory" or "hypothesis" word definitions really somehow can fit this thing?

Intelligent design **** answer to theses questions below?

What tools designer was used to create all?
What purpose was to create all?
When designer was created all?

I am maybe misunderstanding something but intelligent design idea for me is kinda if all creatures just without reason *poof* created with magic and there is no need ask what tools was used/what was reason (there wasn't reason? Intelligent designer do things without reason?).

Basically intelligent design only talking about that evolution is wrong and can't make better/equal scientific theory where is explained how/why all was created? (including experiments, evidence what can handle years of tests).
If no, isn't intelligent design idea is basically negative argument versus evolution?

Thanks.

P.s. Ask to explain what i was thinking if not getting something because my English

It is generally an extremely well-funded propaganda movement that wants to teach (primarily) children and adolescents a normative account of creation with basis in religious texts.

Other than that your difficulty of grasping the concept is rooted in the simple fact that it is primarily born in debate, thus its primary functions are to not be contradicted and win. This is best done by saying very little and attacking the other party.

Intelligent design posits an intelligent designer who successfully used mechanistic, dysteleological laws of nature to "do" virtually everything he wanted but, for a very small amount of things, couldn't use such labour-saving devices and had to directly do the work Himself.

Kind of like a souped up James Dyson that exists outside space and time.

It seems like you are confused. Let's see if we can clear it up.

The same way anything else gets these labels.

It doesn't matter as none of this is necessary.

You are definitely misunderstanding. Intelligent design theory is used in many other areas of such as archeology and forensic science. It has nothing to do with things just *poofing* out of thin air. Why would you think that?

To determine that an arrow head was created by an intelligent being one do you think that requires to know why said being made it? Or with what? Of course not. To determine that someone was murdered and did not die naturally or accidentally would you have to know the killers motives? Again, of course not. So why are you asking these questions?

There is nothing that says most of evolution cannot be correct and intelligent design correct as well. So it is most certainly not an argument from negation. Nor would proving evolution wrong necessarily mean that intelligent design is right as the theory of evolution is not a sans intelligent creator theory by necessity.

No problem

It's a position that relies a lot on the argument from ignorance. I.e, I don't understand how life or the structure of the universe can be so complex without an intelligent designer (or I don't agree that Evolution explains the complexity of life) and therefore there is an intelligent designer. It's true because we don't know that it isn't.

In fact, the lack of evidence to support the ID view only means that we don't know how life became so complex. We can't assume that there is an intelligent designer but the ID crowd needed something that sounded scientific to counter the Theory of Evolution.

Why should we not ask theses questions? We are only creature on earth who can ask theses questions.
I think it more extreme for sociality to not ask theses questions and just accept without questioning unprovable theory as alternative theory to theory what can't be unproved with countless experiments so far and is observed.
For example: your kid (in this situation with ID all world population) ask you from where he come, for what reason and what processes happened when his live (in this situation with ID - first living bacteria if we are not versus evolution) was created but you answer that it don't matter and you will never know it plus there isn't point to question it.

Not really that knowable about ID... watched this.

http://youtu.be/8hTZ5AYzs8o?t=23m35s (23 min. 35 sec. is said what teaching books say)

Imagine there is a guy who was born and raised in a secluded environment, isolated from all debates of evolution, religion, ID etc. He is a simple fisherman who lives in the Bahamas (or some remote place you choose). Our man perceives all the beauty and order in nature, the power of the ocean, and the diversity of sea life. Our man perceives the intensity of tropical storms and the calm of tropical sunsets.

Our man has never heard of Jesus , Allah, Buddha or religion. Would our man be reasonable in concluding that the world came about by something or someone making it?

Philosophically, I'm in favor of the idea of intelligent design insofar as I do think that design is somehow detectable, such as our ability to understand that an arrowhead does not occur "in nature" (more specifically, in the absence of intelligent life) and "designed" with a purpose. This gives us access to some sort of notion of recognizing "intelligence" through the design of various objects.

However, I reject that there is a sound basis upon which to build a scientific theory, as "design" appears to be completely unquantifiable, despite it being intelligbly recognizable.

Interested to hear lemonzest's take on aaron's 'arrowhead' example...

intelligent design is the theory that putting a sewage system and a recreation center in the exact same place is a great idea. let's all notify our city planners so our cities can be more intelligently designed.

There are some who use Intelligent Design as an alternate to evolution; however, that is certainly not true for everyone. There is nothing inherent in Intelligent Design that is inconsistent with evolution.

But there are several different flavors of evolution. Darwinism claims that all evolutionary change occurs as the result of random mutations. Not even all scientists agree with that. If one believes in evolution, but believes that evolution has some non-random forces (just as gravity, strong force, weak force are not random in physics) then one can believe in evolution, but at the same time belief that the forces in the universe (evolutionary change among them) was created (and not just happened randomly).

The problem gets down the fact that there are those who want to prove that God (or some absolute reality beyond the physical world) does not exist, and want to use evolution to prove that. But many people who believe in God also belief that man evolved from micro-organisms and find nothing inconsistent with both those ideas.

Yes, I agree with all of this.
The oft used example of the watch is similar. No one finds a watch and assumes the watch just occured through natural elements coming together over an extended period of time and chance working togther.

Where there is a watch there is a watch maker.

I agree with Aaron that this all just boils down to what is detectable. There is no proof or scientific basis. All we can do is make reasonable inferences.

Are you talking about Vegas ? (srsly)

No more then thinking it always was. Which some did.

i'm talking about human genitalia.

lol - yeah that was my 2nd guess

Ok so, if we can tell an arrowhead or watch is designed because it is different to the things we see in nature, how is this an argument that the things in nature are designed?

E.g.

P1) we can tell when something is designed because it is clearly different from things we find in nature
P2) nature is not different from nature
C1) therefore nature is not designed

You've never heard that joke before?

Re: the arrowhead analogy - I think I agree with Aaron. I would suggest the best way to describe "intelligent design" in the vein he is presenting it (useful, non-scientific) is that it's a heuristic: "Things that look designed probably were designed", but as our understanding of mathematics and nature have improved we've realized that it doesn't represent a logical necessity in the way people have sometimes thought.

This seems to be an argument wrought with conflation.



This is found "in nature" and can also be said to be "designed."

If the world were entirely random, it would not be what you call nature, it would be total chaos.

If people are intelligent (admittedly sometimes questionable), and they evolved, how can one say that evolution is random and not intelligent? Intelligent design does not necessarily have to demand that evolution is exactly predetermined, only that evolution is not completely random.

It's a reductio from your own analogy, not an argument I am seriously advancing.

Ugh. Evolution by natural selection is the opposite of random.

Natural selection of random mutations is not the same as natural selection of non-random mutations.

No one is denying that natural selection occurs, but not everyone agrees that the all evolutionary change (upon which natural selection chooses which changes to keep) are the result of random mutations. The concept of 100% random mutations being the only source of evolutionary change is a major tenant of those who believe that they can prove that God does not exist (or is not necessary).

Even if the mutations were random, that still does not mean that it can exist without a designer let alone must exist without a designer. The mutation is only one piece of the code, and although might be important is really a small player in "program" that is life.

Doesn't look like its been mentioned, but many use the phrase Intelligent Design interchangeably with Creationism or a literal interpretation of the old testament. So you should be mindful of the context of who uses the phrase because they might just be talking about the bible.

Sort of like how African American is the PC way to say black, Intelligent Design is the new way to say Creationism.

for fun, here is a link to Penn & Teller Bull****! episode on creationism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-3Rfg5MvmA