Atheists are now supporting intelligent design

[MiniBoglins]

Atheists are now supporting Intelligent Design

Yes you read the title correctly. You can be an atheist and be a supporter of intelligent design. Some atheists and agnostics can support and are supporting intelligent design.

So what exactly do atheistic intelligent designers believe? Well most of them seem to believe the atheist intelligent design theories of John Gribbin “the multiverse theory” also known as the “designer multiverse theory”. Many scientists are currently supporting this theory including Martin Rees and Bernard Carr.
I have posted many links on the multiverse theory at the end of this article if you want to research this theory deeper.

One reviewer says very honestly “It seems to me that what Gribbin has done is undercut the entire case against teaching ID in public schools. If it's possible that the designer could be a being other than God then objections to ID based on its allegedly religious nature evaporate.”

Another type of atheistic intelligent design similar to the multiverse theory is the belief that humans have created life themselves. This theory has been supported by idealist philosophers for 1000s of years. If every object in the universe is created by human minds then this is indeed is a type of atheistic intelligent design. The philosophies of idealism and phenomenalism have both supported this theory. Physicists are now starting to embrace this theory.

Physicist John Wheeler once offered a suggestion: maybe we should approach cosmic fine-tuning not as a problem but as a clue. Perhaps it is evidence that we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation. It’s an idea that Stephen Hawking has been thinking about, too. Hawking advocates what he calls top-down cosmology, in which observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now. If we in some sense create the universe, it is not surprising that the universe is well suited to us.”

If you want to learn about the cosmic fine tuning theory have a look here:
http://www.discovery.org/a/91
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/te...nts/#CosFinTun
You can be an atheist or a theist and support the cosmic fine tuning theory of intelligent design.

Another type of atheistic intelligent design is the theory of Nick Bostrom. Nick Bostrom puts forward that life is in a computer simulation. Yes that is right life could be a virtual reality. Head over his website:

Here:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html
Read his FAQ
http://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html
or download his paper:
Are you living in a computer simulation?
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

A common mistake is to believe intelligent design is religious or has to include God as the designer. Agnosticism and atheism are compatible with intelligent design.
No theory in the world is complete. Discoveries are always being made; even the ideas about evolution and intelligent design are constantly changing. I first thought it was not possible but I was proven wrong when a number of atheists and agnostics are now breaking away from the materialistic Darwinian evolutionist theories and are now starting to question it and come up with alternative theories some of which are based on intelligent design.

In the last 20 years a number of agnostics started to question the theory of evolution. Books by agnostics leading towards intelligent design were starting to be published. Check out Michael Denton’s Evolution a theory in Crisis or Richard Milton’s classic book “Shattering the myths of Darwinism”.

In the last couple of years a number of atheists have started to support intelligent design. Sorry to the militant atheists but it is true some atheists are supporting intelligent design. The one that will probably interest atheists the most is the work of John Gribbin with his atheistic multiverse theory which has already been mentioned and which we will discuss more on, Fred Hoyle and his panspermia theory, the Omega Point favored by Frank Tipler and Seth Lloyd also fit a similar role as does the fined turned universe of Paul Davies but these lead towards theism so probably would not, but the already mentioned Nick Bostrom's simulation hypothesis is supported by atheists. There are a couple of other theories mentioned in this article.

John Gribbin is an atheist who supports intelligent design. He supports the multitverse theory.
“This might sound far-fetched, but the startling thing about this theory is how likely it is to happen – and to have happened already. All that is required is that evolution occurs naturally in the multiverse until, in at least one universe, intelligence reaches roughly our level. From that seed point, intelligent designers create enough universes suitable for evolution, which bud off their own universes, that universes like our own (in other words, suitable for intelligent life) proliferate rapidly, with "unintelligent" universes coming to represent a tiny fraction of the whole multiverse. It therefore becomes overwhelmingly likely that any given universe, our own included, would be designed rather than "natural". – John Gribbin
“The argument over whether the universe has a creator, and who that might be, is among the oldest in human history. But amid the raging arguments between believers and sceptics, one possibility has been almost ignored – the idea that the universe around us was created by people very much like ourselves, using devices not too dissimilar to those available to scientists today. “John Gribbin
http://telicthoughts.com/intelligent...eism-friendly/

A couple of books by atheists have been published supporting intelligent design.

Read the book

Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design" by Bradley Monton.

Bradley Monton is a strong atheist who has no intention of converting to any religion. He has written an atheistic intelligent design book. In his book he explains Intelligent Design is a valid form of philosophical and scientific inquiry that should be undertaken rather than dismissed.
A review of the book reads

“A new book challenges those assumptions, arguing that ID actually is science, that it is not necessarily tied to belief in God, that it is distinct from creationism, that it is not primarily politically motivated, that it can be appropriate for inclusion in public school science curricula, and that it is not the basis of some deep theocratic conspiracy.
The book argues further that for those who are primarily concerned with the pursuit of truth, those cultural hot buttons are the wrong issues to worry about anyway. Intelligent design is a valid and genuine search for explanation, a quest for understanding, a pursuit of truth; and it is manifestly worthwhile for those reasons regardless of what social issues may be attached to it.
A book like this must have been written by one of the presumed anti-science religious ideologues against which Forrest was warning, probably one of the “creationists” at the Discovery Institute. Right?
It is certainly true that the author has been called a creationist. But he is not a Discovery Institute fellow; he is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. And he is an atheist.”
http://www.examiner.com/methodist-in...lligent-design

Not all theories of intelligent design involve God or a “supernatural entity”, these other theories of ID fit in the boat of atheistic intelligent design.

John Gribbins Atheistic intelligent design - "The designer multiverse theory"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7972538/Are-we-living-in-a-designer-universe.html

 

[Revoltingest]

When I worked as an engineer, I always practiced intelligent design.
My clients preferred this to the alternative of stupid design.

 

[LuisDantas]

Revoltingest has said it all.

 

[HonestJoe]

I think this is stretching the term Intelligent Design a little. There isn't really anything new in ideas and hypotheses involving some form of planned intervention to the universe, earth and/or humans by something or someone other than a deity but ID has traditionally referred to something different.

The quote suggesting that because of these ideas, it is no longer appropriate to keep ID from the (science) classroom is fundamentally flawed. That's like saying that if we prove one man isn't a paedophile, we can let all men in to the classroom without any checks.

What it appropriate for the school curriculum needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, in much more detail than simply saying yes or no to Intelligent Design (even without extending it beyond the theistic). None of what it written here changes the fact that most of what is referred to as ID is based on religious belief and doctrine rather than science. Anything which can establish a widely recognised scientific backing could be considered for school science classes.

As an aside, this does bring to mind a question I've often asked though never had a satisfying answer to; Even if there is physical evidence of design and intelligence in the way the universe works, how do you make the leap from that to identifying (often very specifically) a particular designer?

 

[Gunfingers]

Not to mention even without religious undertones the multiverse theory is still completely unfalsifiable and completely unscientific. It's just a "hey, wouldn't it be neat", idea. As such it still has not business in a science class.

 

[Tristesse]

Great! And if I.D. actually had evidence to support itself, those atheists would be justified in believing it. But as many people on this thread have pointed out, atheism and evolution are in no way tied together. My atheism has nothing to do with my acceptance of evolution. There are plenty of people who are atheists for really bad reasons, so it's no surprise that some of them have accepted an unsupported hypothesis.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It really is amazing how people mindlessly swallow propaganda.

I guess that's why it is had such a long shelf-life.

 

[Magic Man]

Atheists are now supporting Intelligent Design

Yes you read the title correctly. You can be an atheist and be a supporter of intelligent design. Some atheists and agnostics can support and are supporting intelligent design.

False. You cannot be an atheist and believe in Intelligent Design. You can believe that an alien race created humans, but that's not Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design requires an original creator who created all life. That would be a god. Since you're an atheist, you don't believe in God, and therefore don't believe in Intelligent Design.

One reviewer says very honestly “It seems to me that what Gribbin has done is undercut the entire case against teaching ID in public schools. If it's possible that the designer could be a being other than God then objections to ID based on its allegedly religious nature evaporate.”

This is very simple. Either the creator of humans was an alien race that's just far more advanced than humans, which is not ID, or it's some kind of god that created all life and the universe, which is ID.

 

[ellenjanuary]

There isn't any "theory" of intelligent design, there is only agenda; it is but a movement, like bowel... And the "multiverse" is what happened when the double-slit experiment was taken to its illogical extreme; add to that, blue-sky mathematics and a government that'll throw money at any half-baked idea... you do understand that the multiverse reduces personal significance to zero? How they gonna spread that gospel, I'd wonder... that is, if I did not believe in evolution. Every time the cutural climate proudeces mass ignorance - stupidity evolves a prophet.

 

[Revoltingest]

.....the multiverse reduces personal significance to zero?

No worries. I already decided that personal significance is nothing more than what I give it.
Anyway, the universe we have is pretty gosh darn big, & it ain't like I can even detect or count all the others.

 

[Autodidact]

It might help if you told us what you mean by Intelligent Design.

 

[outhouse]

It might help if you told us what you mean by Intelligent Design.

miniblogins post crap but doesnt debate, he got spanked a few times and ran with his tail between his legs to his new cowardly position

 

[Autodidact]

Is that true, mini? You're too scared to debate?

 

[evolved yet?]

Most of his threads have a first post by it and then he just disappears before he can be torn to shreds and look like an idiot.

 

[Skwim]

I recall, as I'm sure others here do as well, when and how the term "intelligent design" came about. For those unfamiliar, back in the early 80s a textbook was proposed for publication by a Christian organization that was to introduce creationism (an act of god) to public school students. Initially called Unlocking the secrets:The Mystery of Life's Origin, the draft went through various revisions, and referenced creationism quite openly.
Ultimately, in 1987, after a publisher had been found, it was to come out as Of Pandas and People. Most importantly, it said "creation means that various forms of life began abruptly," and it used the term "creationists."

However, that same year the US Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the U S Constitution. This meant that Of Pandas and People would die a swift death unless radical changes were made, and so they were. "Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly," was changed to read "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency." And, the term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents." One of the more interesting incidents involving the revision came in the 1989 Kitzmiller v, Dover trial. Arguing that ID was simply creationism in wolf's clothing, the plaintiffs presented evidence showing the deliberate change from "creationists" to "design proponents." A draft of the revised version they had got their hands on had the damning term "cdesign proponentsists" in it. It pretty much shut up the creationists and went a long way in helping to get intelligent design barred from class rooms.

 

[Willamena]

When I worked as an engineer, I always practiced intelligent design.
My clients preferred this to the alternative of stupid design.

:clap

I think this is stretching the term Intelligent Design a little. There isn't really anything new in ideas and hypotheses involving some form of planned intervention to the universe, earth and/or humans by something or someone other than a deity but ID has traditionally referred to something different.

The quote suggesting that because of these ideas, it is no longer appropriate to keep ID from the (science) classroom is fundamentally flawed. That's like saying that if we prove one man isn't a paedophile, we can let all men in to the classroom without any checks.

What it appropriate for the school curriculum needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, in much more detail than simply saying yes or no to Intelligent Design (even without extending it beyond the theistic). None of what it written here changes the fact that most of what is referred to as ID is based on religious belief and doctrine rather than science. Anything which can establish a widely recognised scientific backing could be considered for school science classes.

As an aside, this does bring to mind a question I've often asked though never had a satisfying answer to; Even if there is physical evidence of design and intelligence in the way the universe works, how do you make the leap from that to identifying (often very specifically) a particular designer?

More properly, it's an attempt to unstretch the stereotype and make the words useful again.

Most of his threads have a first post by it and then he just disappears before he can be torn to shreds and look like an idiot.

With the harsh trolls he encounters, I don't blame him.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There are probably more Christian atheists than there are atheists who support intelligent design.

The Christian atheist probably isn't a good Christian, and the atheist who supports intelligent design is not a thoughtful atheist.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

There are probably more Christian atheists than there are atheists who support intelligent design.

The Christian atheist probably isn't a good Christian, and the atheist who supports intelligent design is not a thoughtful atheist.

Did you hear about the Jewish atheist? He know what the God he doesn't believe in expects of him.

 

[Agnostic75]

One reviewer says very honestly “It seems to me that what Gribbin has done is undercut the entire case against teaching ID in public schools. If it's possible that the designer could be a being other than God then objections to ID based on its allegedly religious nature evaporate."

No, "if it's possible that the designer could be a being other than God," objections would not evaporate. If an intelligent alien created life on earth, that merely changes the question of "where did humans come from?" to "where did the intelligent alien come from?," a question that no theist could honestly and intelligently answer without referring to the supernatural.

It is important to note that religion was not the only issue in the Dover trial. Following is part of judge John Jones' decision:

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: ……… (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. (page 64)

[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)

ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)

It is also important to note that the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Answers in Genesis (AIG), are furious with Christians who substitute "intelligent design" for "creationism." The ICR, AIG, and all other people who are conservative theists, will never accept the "an alien did it" theory.

By the way, judge Jones is a Christian, and was appointed by a Republican president.

 

[MiniBoglins]

miniblogins post crap but doesnt debate, he got spanked a few times and ran with his tail between his legs to his new cowardly position

No it's not that. I don't have a computer, when i make my posts i am having to make them at college and i only get to do this once in every few weeks. I will at some point get back to some of the threads i started im just a bit tired down which college work at the moment.