Dinosaur tail found preserved in amber!

[Amarok]

Not at all. ID is the claim that mankind was designed and created as he is now, in his current form. Species change, but there is some sort of cap on the change in that there is no speciation. Not mechanism is suggested as a method of capping these changes so as not to allow for speciation.

.
Ah, I see. Thanks! 

I thought maybe ID meant that someone accepts evolution completely, but still believes that God was behind it all and set everything into motion to begin with.

No that would be theistic evolution

the idea that go was so smart that he was able to set the development of life before hand without needing to fiddle with it constantly (dip the divine finger in) this contrasts  with ID which claims god is a musician who wants to meddle with his own creation constantly (because god apparently can't create perfect creatures right off)

I take this to simplify

ID god dips his finger in constantly because he's never happy

TE god so great and powerful he doesn't need to interfere in the development of life till humans show up

[ApeNotKillApe]

Theistic evolution God only steps in wherever human understanding is lacking at the time.

[Amarok]

Isn't intelligent design the same thing as evolution anyway? Just a different way to say it?

Not at all. ID is the claim that mankind was designed and created as he is now, in his current form. Species change, but there is some sort of cap on the change in that there is no speciation. Not mechanism is suggested as a method of capping these changes so as not to allow for speciation.

Creationist try and invoke Russels teapot when faced with the fact that they can't come up with a means by which changes are limited it's stupid because we have shown that changes happen so what's keeping it within kinds they simple dodge the question

---

Theistic evolution God only steps in wherever human understanding is lacking.

Depends Kenneth miller doesn't think so neither does polkinghorn

[ApeNotKillApe]

Good for them. I've never seen any argument for theistic evolution that wasn't either a lie or a argument from ignorance/personal incredulity.

[Amarok]

Good for them. I've never seen any argument for theistic evolution that wasn't either a lie or a argument from ignorance/personal incredulity.

then I guessing you have not heard many

[ApeNotKillApe]

Good for them. I've never seen any argument for theistic evolution that wasn't either a lie or a argument from ignorance/personal incredulity.

then I guessing you have not heard many

I'm all eyes...

EDIT: Y'know cuz the phrase is usually 'I'm all ears' but we're communicating in a written format, so I...y'know...because reading and...I'm being clever, okay? I swear I am.

[Amarok]

then I guessing you have not heard many

I'm all eyes...

EDIT: Y'know cuz the phrase is usually 'I'm all ears' but we're communicating in a written format, so I...y'know...because reading and...I'm being clever, okay? I swear I am.

about what specifically what particular notion of TE am I defending the idea god could be behind the start of life using natural mechanisms and created DNA to be adaptive enough to change without need for direct intervention

and yes it was clever

[RoadRunner79]

Not at all. ID is the claim that mankind was designed and created as he is now, in his current form. Species change, but there is some sort of cap on the change in that there is no speciation. Not mechanism is suggested as a method of capping these changes so as not to allow for speciation.

.
Ah, I see. Thanks! 

I thought maybe ID meant that someone accepts evolution completely, but still believes that God was behind it all and set everything into motion to begin with.

I believe that you are thinking of theistic evolution.  "Intelligent design" is the theory, that an intelligent cause is the best explanation for certain features of the universe and living things; and that this may be detected by the evidence left behind.  You will hear words such as Complex Specified information, Irreducible Complexity, and Fine Tuning in discussions of intelligent design.  In science; intelligent design is a mathematically rigid discipline.  It deals quite a bit with probabilities, calculating available outcomes verses viable outcomes.  While the different arguments have their own nuances, each essentially comes down to showing that an agent capable of making choices, is a more likely explanation than either necessity (strong physical forces) or chance (weak physical forces). 

Intelligent design has been utilized in other areas of science for some time, such as;  anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).  The goal is to determine whether natural causes or intelligent causes best explain the evidence.  To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause, and often even natural intuition will tell us this.  If you came home to find your house cleaned and everything put away neatly, you may immediately ask who did this (or who was in your house, if you thought no one was home).   You are unlikely to think that an explosion in the washing machine, nor a influx of energy, arranged things in this manner. 

You also seen this type of reasoning, a while back, when crop circles where appearing in various areas.  Natural or random forces where quickly ruled out, because of the complexity, and deliberate nature of the designs.  Some speculated that these impressions where beyond the capability of human beings, and suggested that they where the results of aliens.  This was shown to be false, but doesn't impact the reasoning, that lead to an intelligent agent as the cause.   Some may argue however, that known intelligent agents where in the suspect list (humans), and that a personal designer cannot be implored, where one is not known to exist.   However, if similar impressions where found on Mars, the exact same reasoning, would lead us to the same results.  However this time, the intelligent agent is unknown (unless someone hacked the Mars rover to make them when no one is looking).  It would still be evidence of an intelligent cause.

This comes to a common accusation of intelligent design, and the criticism that it is creationism or veiled theologically.  This is not accurate.  There are intelligent design advocates, who are not religious.  Antony Flew for instance (who participated in a number of debates as an atheist) ultimately became convinced of intelligent design (which led him to deism not theism).  Intelligent design theory moves forward from the evidence, to determine if something is best explained by design or not.  Creationism on the other hand, often starts with the assumption that things where created, and then tries to fit the evidence into that worldview.  I.D. looks to limit it's claims to what can be inferred from scientific evidence and research.  Something may be designed, but not give evidence of it.  Or the evidence may not give clues to what or who the designer is. Similarly, I.D. is not against evolution.  It is certainly not against  natural variation and changes in the frequency of details which appear within a species over time.  It is not against common descent evolution (although would posit, that certain changes require a cause capable of choice and purpose).  Even modern synthesis (the neo-Darwin mechanism of unguided mutation plus selection) is not at odds with Intelligent design entirely (smaller point mutations may happen to add benefit although far more likely to be neutral or detrimental).  However where the conflict comes in, is that an intelligent design advocate doesn't believe in universal common descent primarily moved by unguided modification plus natural selection.   This belief under the name of evolution is more about ideology, and less about science.

Note:  I would take much of what a number of people here say about I.D. tentatively, and encourage you to check out the facts from other sources.  Also, neither of the two articles I cited previously had anything to do with I.D.

[Jesster]

[Amarok]

.
Ah, I see. Thanks! 

I thought maybe ID meant that someone accepts evolution completely, but still believes that God was behind it all and set everything into motion to begin with.

I believe that you are thinking of theistic evolution.  "Intelligent design" is the theory, that an intelligent cause is the best explanation for certain features of the universe and living things; and that this may be detected by the evidence left behind.  You will hear words such as Complex Specified information, Irreducible Complexity, and Fine Tuning in discussions of intelligent design.  In science; intelligent design is a mathematically rigid discipline.  It deals quite a bit with probabilities, calculating available outcomes verses viable outcomes.  While the different arguments have their own nuances, each essentially comes down to showing that an agent capable of making choices, is a more likely explanation than either necessity (strong physical forces) or chance (weak physical forces). 

Intelligent design has been utilized in other areas of science for some time, such as;  anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).  The goal is to determine whether natural causes or intelligent causes best explain the evidence.  To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause, and often even natural intuition will tell us this.  If you came home to find your house cleaned and everything put away neatly, you may immediately ask who did this (or who was in your house, if you thought no one was home).   You are unlikely to think that an explosion in the washing machine, nor a influx of energy, arranged things in this manner. 

You also seen this type of reasoning, a while back, when crop circles where appearing in various areas.  Natural or random forces where quickly ruled out, because of the complexity, and deliberate nature of the designs.  Some speculated that these impressions where beyond the capability of human beings, and suggested that they where the results of aliens.  This was shown to be false, but doesn't impact the reasoning, that lead to an intelligent agent as the cause.   Some may argue however, that known intelligent agents where in the suspect list (humans), and that a personal designer cannot be implored, where one is not known to exist.   However, if similar impressions where found on Mars, the exact same reasoning, would lead us to the same results.  However this time, the intelligent agent is unknown (unless someone hacked the Mars rover to make them when no one is looking).  It would still be evidence of an intelligent cause.

This comes to a common accusation of intelligent design, and the criticism that it is creationism or veiled theologically.  This is not accurate.  There are intelligent design advocates, who are not religious.  Antony Flew for instance (who participated in a number of debates as an atheist) ultimately became convinced of intelligent design (which led him to deism not theism).  Intelligent design theory moves forward from the evidence, to determine if something is best explained by design or not.  Creationism on the other hand, often starts with the assumption that things where created, and then tries to fit the evidence into that worldview.  I.D. looks to limit it's claims to what can be inferred from scientific evidence and research.  Something may be designed, but not give evidence of it.  Or the evidence may not give clues to what or who the designer is. Similarly, I.D. is not against evolution.  It is certainly not against  natural variation and changes in the frequency of details which appear within a species over time.  It is not against common descent evolution (although would posit, that certain changes require a cause capable of choice and purpose).  Even modern synthesis (the neo-Darwin mechanism of unguided mutation plus selection) is not at odds with Intelligent design entirely (smaller point mutations may happen to add benefit although far more likely to be neutral or detrimental).  However where the conflict comes in, is that an intelligent design advocate doesn't believe in universal common descent primarily moved by unguided modification plus natural selection.   This belief under the name of evolution is more about ideology, and less about science.

Note:  I would take much of what a number of people here say about I.D. tentatively, and encourage you to check out the facts from other sources.  Also, neither of the two articles I cited previously had anything to do with I.D.

TOTAL BULLSHIT