Hey all,
I am currently studying the topic of Intelligent Design (ID). Basically the ID theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a Deity. There's 4 sub-categories of ID that I know of:
- Biological Arguments
- Cosmological Arguments
- Mathematical Arguments
- Anti-Darwinian Arguments
1: Biological Arguments
The first sub-category of ID is the biological one. There main theorie here is the theory of Irreducible Complexity (IC), developed by M.J. Behe, a biochemist at LeHigh University. IC means, in Behe's words:" ... a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." The analogy used to explain this is usually a mousetrap. A mousetrap has several components, all of which are necessary for catching mice. A precursor "trap" that lacked one of the components -- the spring, the trigger or the platform, perhaps -- could not trap mice, and lacking even minimal function, could not be improved through incremental adaptive evolution into a functioning trap. Just like this, there are processes in the body, like a bacterial flegallum, the bloodclotting system, and many more systems which are IC and can't be evolved in the darwinian way (For more info read his easy-to-read book: Darwin's Black Box) And of course, behijnd an IC system there is a creator, which might be God.
2: Cosmological Arguments
Or in other words, the Anthropic Principle. It seems that our entire universe has been "fine-tuned" for life. If the constants of this universe (constants like gravityconstant, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, etcetera) would be slightly different then this universe would either not exist or would certainly not be life suitable. Also, the exact timing and assymetry of the Bog Bang is calculated to be so precise, that if some contstants there varied less then 1 part of 10^66 (a to with 66 zeros) then this universe would have either collapsed back in itself or would have been expanding so fast that there could be no galaxies and no solar systems. Very small changes in other constants would make all stars Red Dwarfs or Blue Giants, would make Helium the only atom, or would make all sun cores from Iron, would make no atoms just free electrons, or only radiation possible, etcetera. Also, our earth is very rare. Would we be more towards the inside of the galaxy then there would be deadly radiation and black holes. Would we be closer to the sun then it would be too hot for life, vice versa would it be too cold. Would Jupiter not be there then we would be hit by a big asteroid every 100,000 years. Would the moon not be there then the climate would be very hard for the existance of life, etcetera etcetera. All these things are exactly the way they should be for life. (Read this all in W.L Craig: Finte Tuned Universe, or Barrow, Tipler: The Anthropic Principle). Now this is something we can call too coincidental, same as the "thumb of the merchant" principle. When a merchant sells you a nice cloth, and when you buy it and examine it more closely it has a hole in it, and when you confornt the marchant with it he simply replies "Well, my thumb had to be somewhere on the cloth, and that it covered the hole exactly was a big a chance as it were anywhere else" This is just too coincidental. Or, if there is a gameshow where if you dont throw 100 times "6 eyes" after each other (so 100 chances and you have to throw 100 times 6 eyes) with a dice, you will be killed instantly. Then, when you throw 100 times 6 eyes wouldnt the public that watches the gameshow think that the game has been rigged. Of course the do. But the chance of 100 times 6 eyes is the same as 100 times any other combination (because the chance is always 1/6). Same as these things, its too coincidental that the universe is life permitting as it is, when all other possible outcomes of a universe (we can calculate this) would be not-suitable for life, and there seems to be no reason why these universes wouldnt be possible. So some Deity (is the usual conclusion) most have made it suitable for life.
3: Mathematical Arguments
The 2 arguments above are the most important I think, but William Dembski made another nice ID structure in his book The Design Inference. He made a mathematical procedure which allows you to calculate when something is necessity, chance, or design. He made a whole "machine" for it, and when you put something in it and you want to know wether it was produced by necessity, chance, or it was designed, then it will give you the correct outcome. And following his theory, the Universe must be designed. (If you like maths you should read that book).
Anti-Darwinian Arguments
Some people believe that arguments against darwinism are almost instantly arguments for creation. So they are attacking the holes in the fossil record, the lack of evidence, the lack of falsifiability of darwinism, and more of the sort.
Now, most of these arguments have been repeatadly used in the newer books of the JW. And I must say that the new Teological Argument and the ID theories are getting stronger. In the last 50 years we have found more evidence for the existance of God then ever before. I always find it very interesting to see how people react on this information. If a JW wants to start a conversation with someone who doesn't believe in God, he will usually come to one of these points (or he should in my opinion). I wrote this all down in a nuttshell and I can provide extensive research and articles and everything, but do you guys think, after reading some of this and maybe investigating it a bit, that a Creator exists or do you still have your doubts and why? For the record, I don't think the argument: "There is evil, so God cant exist" is one to discuss here, thats something I might start a thread on later. To be honest, for the design argument it doesnt matter wether the Creator was a good God, a bad god, a god who doesnt care about us anymore, or never did, aliens or whatever. All that matters are the signs of creation (ID is a scientific argument, not a theological one). So any thoughts, objections or anything else is welcome for my research ;)