The intelligent design idea has nothing to do with intelligence; it is a belief based on faith.
You're free to use
the intelligent design idea as your personal explanation of how the world came to be.
Not exact matches
Their
idea of «
intelligent design» is really just creationism without any science at all.
Coppedge claims he never forcibly compelled colleagues to accept his
idea of
intelligent design in the workplace.
If they did understand it, they would acknowledge that
intelligent design is just a nice
idea that confirms their religion - based beliefs about God and the universe.
The problem with the «
intelligent design» people is that they can't seem to merge the
ideas that science and religion don't have to be at odds.
They object to
ideas of «
intelligent design» largely because they can't imagine what a non-human intelligence might look like.
What less conservative Christians are not committed to is the
idea that
intelligent design excludes the possibility of evolution.
The whole
idea of a creator or
intelligent design is that the creator exists OUTSIDE of that which was created.
Now consider the following quotation from the
Idea Center website (an ID site), contrasting
intelligent design with the randomness of Darwinian natural selection.
You see your
ideas the universe not being «fine tuned» are actually positives for the claim of
intelligent design.
Design by definition means that an idea precedes its embodiment; I know of no simpler or more rigorous argument for intelligent design than the very existence of codes and lan
Design by definition means that an
idea precedes its embodiment; I know of no simpler or more rigorous argument for
intelligent design than the very existence of codes and lan
design than the very existence of codes and language.
The mountain loads of evidence you cite for evolution are not at odds with the
idea of
intelligent design.
I think if a scientist (not teaching a class) wants to explore the
idea of
intelligent design, that shouldn't immediately destroy his career.
As for advocates of «
intelligent design» — the media - savvy group that has brought its
ideas to school boards and courtrooms — they aren't even worth a mention by AiG, which makes abundant references to Darwin himself at the museum in the course of doling out ammunition with which to attack him.
The superficially persuasive argument, later resurrected as
intelligent design and its
idea of irreducible complexity, turned out to be very refutable indeed.
His
ideas opened a type of path not opened by
intelligent design: methodically challenging the initial base of
ideas and refining it until it becomes something far more specific and useful.
Second, by not identifying the designer as God, the
intelligent design movement sought to immunize the position from constitutional scrutiny: The
idea was to purge creationism of its overt religiosity, so that
intelligent design could succeed where creation science failed.»
It's all part of a gradual rhetorical shift away from talking about creationism and
intelligent design toward casting doubt on evolution, says Joshua Rosenau, spokesperson for the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif. «They have this
idea,» he says, «that it's a zero - sum game, so anything you can do to knock evolution down actually promotes creationism without having to say the word.»
While Final Fantasy VII and Square's subsequent games were an assertion of the value of developing and
designing a game with a story at the center of the experience, and using that story to assert
ideas about politics economics, and philosophy, Dragon Quarter was a statement in return that similarly
intelligent engagements of political
ideas could be built into games of minimal narrative that still focused primarily on gamers» engagement with mechanics.
The Japanese Metabolists, for instance, envisioned large scale, flexible, and expandable structures that echoed the processes of organic growth; in the U.S. Nicholas Negroponte coined the
idea of a responsive architecture that was mechanically and dynamically integrated with its surroundings, an
idea that lives on in projects like Columbia's Living Architecture Lab, in
design philosophies like biomimicry, and in concepts like the digitally - networked
intelligent city.
You may have faith in Spencer's work, but I find it hard to put a lot of confidence in one figure who's been fighting the
idea of AGW from the start (and a fan of
intelligent design to boot).