OT: Evolution vs intelligent design

[Scott R. Brown]

Ok here is the ending I hope, LOL!!

I actually miss-wrote the portion indicating redundant portions of the brain.

I meant to imply the Mind was also an area wherein memory would reside not just the physical brain. Damage to the brain through trauma or chemical imbalance or damage would be damage to the hardware that is meant to interface with the Mind (software). When communication between the Mind and Body is impaired behavioral dysfunction would result. I am clear that presently this thesis is also un-provable. But it is likely if a separate Mind does exist this would be the logical explanation of behavioral anomalies. As I previously mentioned, chemical or surgical interventions would then repair enough of the receptive structure to allow for Mind/Body communication to take place. This is clearly speculation as is much of the final part of my previous post.

Concerning who created the Prime Mover:

In the Old Testament the name of God is stated to be Yahweh. “Yahweh”, or “I AM”, or “I AM that I AM”, indicates “Self-existent One! This condition concurs with the Hindu belief and is somewhat similar to philosophical Taoist conceptions. In Buddhism it is referred to as “Suchness”. That is “That Which Is” and has no definition. This “condition of being” occurs, but as I have previously mentioned it must be apprehended directly and without mental commentary. It cannot be defined and communication of what it is cannot be accomplished. As such it is beyond the scope of science which is not comfortable with anything it cannot measure and define. The error of science is that it tends to consider anything that cannot be measured as irrelevant, whereas from the view of the mystic anything that can be measured is superfluous. Indeed the Hindu/Buddhist term for the “illusion of the material world” is “maya” which is the root for “to measure”. This means that if you measure it or try to measure it, you have lost it. This is why mystic/religious experience is beyond scientific measurement.

Our minds tend to think along linear lines; however this is not actually the natural state of mental function. Linear thinking is a result of language. Because we begin to learn language at such a young age many people are unaware that it is merely a conventional manner of thinking and not the Mind’s inherent method of operation. When I was about 15 years old I noticed I could think in what I called “conceptual form”. To figure out a dilemma I could either reason along in a dialectic form or I could hold the dilemma in my mind in conceptual “non-linear” form and the solution would occur without any real thinking in the conventional sense. The solution seemed to coalesce out of a cloud of conceptual thought. That is the only way I can explain it. To communicate the resultant solution I was required to translate “the feeling of knowing” into the linear form of words. To me it was visualized as an amorphous “fog of knowing” wherein an entire linear thought process occurred at once. From this “fog of knowing” I would communicate a thought process into linear form. Something I knew at once could take minutes or hours to express in linear form. But the linear expression was not an exact representation of the“fog of knowing”. This is a very inadequate but passable account of the phenomena of how the mind actually functions. Most people are unaware of it because they are so accustomed to linear thinking in words that if it occurs they don’t notice it. This is also similar but on a very limited sense an example of “Suchness” It is not that “I” was thinking, it was “thinking occurred” there was no subject or object per se until I began the translation into linear terms.

Another expression of the phenomenon takes us back to the orange. The description of the taste of an orange is not the actual taste, but merely a linear representation of it. The experience of tasting an orange is instantaneous, but the effort to explain the experience could take pages to describe.

The scientific method cannot define this mental state of being because science is concerned with cutting things up and measuring them and not with non-communicable experience. This is the realm of the student of mysticism.

Hi ChristopherM,

I agree with your statement that inherently all knowledge is only relatively certain. My complaint is that scientists insist on making statements of fact and while it may be implied that it is only relatively certain, I don’t believe the general population believes that is what they are inferring. Whether they are actually inferring it or not is debatable.

I don’t see it as a trivial assertion when it is implied or outright stated to be fact by scientists including Dawkins as I have previously stated. It is taught as fact in school and while I do not have a problem with it being taught as the most plausible explanation at present, it is still founded upon inductive reasoning and many of the methods used to verify it are subject to question as well such as carbon dating and geological strata dating. These are both based upon the best scientific data as well, but are also not scientifically verifiable to a certainty. So what we end up with is marginally verifiable facts verifying other facts that become marginal because the supporting evidence for it is marginal. This creates a house of cards all founded on the acceptance of assumed fact rather than verifiable fact.

Either I was not clear or you misunderstood my argument. I was not intending to imply the 3rd law of thermodynamics cancels evolution. I meant to imply the possibility of an ID. That is if a system is in less order now it must have possessed greater order in the past. Since I know that mind creates order out of seeming chaotic materials (we do it all the time), we may infer the “possibility” of an ID. I do not find the 7 day creation of Christianity to be a necessity when an ID is implied. To me evolution may be part of the ID design. I just don’t consider evolution to be a certainty. Although I do agree it is plausible, possible and perhaps probable.

Neither do I find it confounding that the evolution of organisms from simple form to more complex form in conflict with the 3rd law of thermodynamics. I did not originate the law. If it exists as a Truth the universe as a whole will conform to it eventually. There is clearly enough energy existent within the universe to motivate complex accretions. But I believe the 3rd law implies the overall amount of energy in the universe is dissipating. As such, even newly created complex forms will at some point conform to the law and become disordered; joining the “ultimate state of inert uniformity”.

As I qualified previously i can't promise anymore postings. My family is not appreciative of the time I am robbing from them. However, i must offer appreciation for the mature and academic tone this discussion is following. This is why i have made an attempt to continue participating.

I apologize for the excessive length of my repsonses, this is the way my brain works and i fault no one for not wishing to read anything i post for its excessiveness.

[Robbie]

Scott,
For an authoritative reply to most of what you are saying see
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
You'll notice Mika posted this already. It not only answers your questions but also provides links for further research.
As to understanding what ID is. Have you read the Kitzmiller/Dover decision.
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/main_doc...miller_342.pdf [in pdf form]
Yes it is 139 pages but guess what? Judge Jones was had a good look at everything they've got. The DI stated that ID was science. Both parties agreed to the definition of science. And in the end he ruled it wasn't science. If you want a good laugh check the trial transcript for the testimony of Behe. He says that in order for ID to be science Astrology has to be allowed in too. btw Behe is one of the main movers of ID.
I'll probably check this thread tomorrow but don't even answer me if you don't read the decision. Pretty much any argument you can make gets shot down in there just like it has been in science circles.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Robbie,

I think you have misunderstood my posts. I do not consider evolution "not science" and i have repeatedly stated it is plausible, possible and probable. But it is not certain. on the FAQ they state:

"The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact." I agree it is probable, but it is still founded upon inductive reasoning. In otherwords, it is not subject to repeatable experimentation to verify its certainty. this is why I do not consider it FACT!! If it could be subject to repeatable experimentation, i would be more comfortable considering it a certainty.

To bad I am too dense to have thought to put it so simply from the beginning, LOL!! i wouldnt have had to waste so much time writing al that previous non-sense!

I repeatedly asserted that ID is not science. To know or expereince the ID one must go the opposite direction of science. It is a state of being and not measurable, but it is repeatable. If you haven't had the experience you wouldnt understand.

I have also stated that I consider evolution merely a part of the ID's design. Evolution does not eliminate the possibility of an ID only special creation in 7 days. I have never asserted special creation in 7 days was something I agree with! Some evolutionists suggest "random chance" or "random cause" is the source of the creation of the universe. I find this assertion ridiculous and this is what I am arguing against!

I thank you for the links and i will read them!

[mantis108]

Thank you once again for replying to my thoughts and thank you for pointing to the land of the orange (although I prefer the peach as I am Chinese, lol).

It took me a quite a bit of chewing and digesting what you are saying, but if I may, you truely have a beautiful mind. I believe in the "fog of knowing" you are the beacon that shine through. Now, I understand the difference (not that I intended to) between the primodial soup and the stew of chemicals. I confess that I have been for a long while confused or being indifference about the 2.

My anecdote to share is that in the early 80s, I have a chance meeting with a Tibetant Lama. I believe he was trying to come across the power of the mind as you eloquently expounded, which for another decade later, I thought and misinterpreted as Chaos theory and that's just in my mind what he wanted to come across. But today you have shattered that illusion with the might of Vajra/dorje (great wisdom of the void). I guess that's like the lightening bolt that was introduce to the closed system in the previous example that you gave. For that I am in your debt.

Perhaps this means little to you but I say this with utmost respect that You are indeed a great teacher and a Bodhisattva.

Sincere Namaste

Robert Hui (Mantis108)

[FuXnDajenariht]

like i said....i dont see any conflict. maybe some people shouldn't associate an ID with a god figure. maybe create a new definition of god that they wouldn't be so adverse to. im sure there alot of advocates for ID that are also atheists, me included.

[Christopher M]

My complaint is that scientists insist on making statements of fact and while it may be implied that it is only relatively certain...

The distinction your argument here relies on simply doesn't exist. There is no useful distinction between "fact" in the sense of absolute certainty and mere relative certainty because the former does not exist -- there is no such thing as absolute certainty. There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching something of which we're only relatively certain as a scientific fact, because that is precisely what a scientific fact is; that is precisely what any sort of fact is.

I meant to imply the possibility of an ID.

Implying the possibility of ID is trivial. There's also the possibility of the moon being made out of cheese and of hamburgers eating people. Pointing out the infinite number of things which are merely possible is a pointless exercise. This is why scientists and philosophers focus their efforts, rather, on reasons why something might be the case.

Neither do I find it confounding that the evolution of organisms from simple form to more complex form in conflict with the 3rd law of thermodynamics.

The two aren't in conflict, as I explained.

[SanHeChuan]

Scott sorry you got a little too long winded to read everything.

I think you have one point slightly backwards. Your assumption that the universe is ordered and moving to chaos seems backwards. In a state of perfect entropy or absolute zero everything is perfectly predictable because nothing changes, and that would be closer to the definition of order than chaos. Since the universe is moving towards entropy it is moving towards order. The universe is in movement and subject to change and there for unpredictable from our point of view. We can try to understand parts of it and hope that they apply to the whole but we can not know.

I feel that our attempts to measure and there for order the universe mirrors the universe attempt to order our self. We try to apply ordered frames to pieces of the universe only to find that they do not perfectly fit. Is that because we have not perceived the right order or because the universe as a whole has no real order? Is the order we do imagine only an illusion created by the chaos and our own mind, like when we perceive familiar shapes in the random forms of clouds? The universe in its progression towards ordering itself implies some form of consciousness, which would make the “universe” “God”. So are we in fact mirroring “God”? Which would seem natural, a common belief of mysticism is that the part mirrors the whole. OR I’m I only imbuing the universe with my own familiar consciousness (order), or does the universe/god in fact have a mind separate from the one I imagine for it? Is God mans ultimate paragon of order to apply to the universes unfathomable chaos?

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Mantis108,

Thank you once again for the kind words. Your words do have meaning to me and I appreciate your kindness. I am happy I may have helped in some small way to clear up some confusion you may have had.

Hi ChristopherM,

I disagree:

I am certain fire is hot, I am certain water is wet. I am certain if I hit my thumb with a hammer it will hurt. If I get cut I will bleed. If my heart stops beating I will die. Many things in life are certain.

Here, in my view, is an example of the certainty of evolution:

I am sitting at a refreshment stand next to an orange grove. There are boxes of oranges in plain sight. I have on my table glasses of orange pulpy liquid. You walk up to me and ask me for a glass of orange juice. I reply, “I have no orange juice.” You say, “I can see you have 5 or 6 glasses right in front of you.” With a twinkle in my eye I respond, “Those are not glasses of orange juice.” You laugh at my joke and say. “No really! May I have a glass of orange juice please?” I smile and repeat, “Really! I have no orange juice available!” You counter with a big grin wondering what is so funny and ask, “OK! May I just have one of those glasses of juice in front of you?” I say, “Sure thing! 25 cents please!” You pay the money, take the glass and drink the juice! Then you laugh, now understanding the joke! Since I am next to an orange grove, at a juice stand with boxes of oranges in plain sight you ASSUMED I had orange juice in the glasses. But once you actually DRANK the juice you discovered it was TANGERINE JUICE!! LOL!!!!

Certainly your assumption was a reasonable one. Certainly just about everyone would have tended to draw the same conclusion. But your assumption was not a certainty AND YOU WERE WRONG!!!!

Here is the thing about science. We continually here results of experiments telling us. Coffee is bad for you!! A few months later, Coffee is good for you!! Then we are told secondhand cigarette smoke is dangerous, then we find out the World Health Organization is sitting on a study that demonstrates there is absolutely no evidence to show secondhand smoke is dangerous. Science with all their knowledge and FACTS tell us the sky is falling, but then it doesn’t fall. They do this over and over again. At some point they lose their credibility. Forgive me then for distrusting their conclusions. Science repeatedly asserts conflicting conclusions (FACTS). A few years ago they found that the white mice that many scientists were running studies on had a genetic flaw due to inbreeding. This invalidated hundreds if not thousands of tests!!

Some may bow to the GODS of science, but I do not! I don’t bend over and just take whatever tripe they decide to dish out today! Scientists are NOT altruistic researchers into truth! They are flawed human beings just like the rest of us with egocentric attitudes, political agendas, preconceived notions, and fixed ways of interpreting their data. Anyone one of these will cause flaws in data collection, errors in design, and negatively influence data interpretation. How much more error when they are combined?

Implying an ID is trivial to YOU!!! Not to everyone!! To many it is the most important thing in their lives! You are merely the man who wants proof what an orange tastes like, but refuses to go get one and eat it for yourself. Or perhaps you don't care what an orange tastes like, that is fine too. But some people find value and meaning and yes, TRUTH in eating their oranges. Be careful not to pass judgment on that which you know nothing about!

Hi SanHeChaun,

LOL!! I understand! It is a little much to read.

I did not state the universe is tending to disorder, the 3rd law of thermodynamics does:

British scientist C.P. Snow writes: “You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).”

I merely repeated it and used the law as a support for my thesis.

If something is moving towards disorder it may only do so if it began ordered. Disorder cannot move to disorder, only order can move towards disorder. If you say well disorder could move to greater disorder, I would respond then it was still in a state of order if it is moving from one state to another. Once there are two states disorder and "greater disorder" one of them is relatively ordered compared to the other. That would be the lesser disordered state!

I like your notion! Does existence have inherent order or do we perceive order because our minds impose it upon phenomena? I would say yes and no both! The conclusion we arrive at is based upon the perspective we start with. If there was no inherent order we could not perceive it, but if we didn’t possess an inherently ordered mind we couldn’t perceive it either. Our minds are ordered, therefore we perceive order in an ordered universe.

Please consider this:

Once we postulate anything beyond “ONE”, we automatically have order. Order springs in to being spontaneously once TWO occurs. If we didn’t have order we couldn’t have TWO. Order and TWO are so closely combined that without one we cannot have the other. This is because the separation of ONE into TWO is an ACT of ordering! When we have ONE we have no order, once we have TWO order is present. If we couldn’t perceive order we would only perceive ONE and we could not perceive TWO, that is, no division would be perceptible. When no division is perceived there is no order present. Therefore, order is not only an inherent quality of the mind, it is also an inherent quality of phenomena. We may state this because, as you have postulated, each of the parts possess the characteristics of the whole. Because the whole (ONE) has order once it is divided, we possess order. This is because we are part of that which is divided, but when we no longer choose to perceive the ONE as divided we will perceive no divisions and order dissolves. This is why we experience ourselves as unified with ”all things”, the ONE, when having a mystical experience and this is why we can say that order is inherently present and not present.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

First, a sincere thanks to Scott for his diligence and remarkably well reasoned and well structured presentation..

I think the word "God" carries way too much religious and social baggage.. its use in this very interesting thread introduces preconceptions that confuse some very important points..

A serious issue for my understanding is the notion of a closed system.. considering the vastness of infinity/eternity i am of the opinion that we deal with the limits of our perception/reason.. necessarily discounting unknown variables beyond our current limits of perception.. What i reason is that we function collectively within the limits of our perceived reality, by collectively i sense that there is a "collective consciousness" (intelligent designer).. the CC (colective consciousness) is, for our practical purposes, eternal and infinite within our limits of perception/awareness.. as much as we can conceive the concept of infinity/eternity, it is quite difficult to imagine situations or conditions exceeding anything not based on prior experience.. that there may be unimaginable forces and realities so distant in spacial relationship from us as to be unobservable is not beyond reasonable consideration.. that these unimaginable forces and realities could observe our "closed system" is also not beyond reason.. from this perspective we might appear as a single-celled organism.. with its own primitive (read simple) intelligence, a perspective looking in from the outside.. from the inside, the "simple" intelligence would seem to be something akin to the Prime Mover or Intelligent Designer.. a matter of perspective.. i refuse to limit reality to the limits of humanity's perceptive capabilities..

Heat death or inert uniformity is an interesting possibility (pun intended).. that is to say that aside from uniform absolute zero, there is possibility and potential.. considering that gravity affects light waves/particles, it can be reasoned that it could also affect radiant (heat) energy.. that even with the state of inert uniformity there is the potential for change.. either from gravitational anomalies or outside influences.. to suggest otherwise is to negate existence in its entirity.. by that i mean that in relationship to a true infinity/eternity field that relationship would eventually, by comparison, be so insignificant as to be pointless and non-existent.. rather, i sense a scenario not unlike a sponge, where the voids in the sponge represent "closed systems" separated by limits of perception unique to each closed system.. as i am drawing from this "fog of knowledge" (thanks Scott, for the great analogy) i begin to wonder if the separation is, itself, an inter-related observer, the "real" universe.. the cradle that supports closed systems of possibility.. sorry, just some speculation.. The point is, that in dealing simply with knowns or givens we limit potentials..

Scott has cleverly woven a plausible and well reasoned description of a "most-likely" scenario.. i have long accepted the notion of ID, i have equally as long rejected a cosmic dictator ("God") as the best description of that ID.. i sense that for all its seemingly complex intracacies the "Desiginer" is quite simple.. it permits order and chaos to be interchangable, according to the observer's perspective.. since i cannot conceive of "something from nothing", i accept, without further complicating the issue, that there has always been "something", there is no "origin", only changes in relationships.. i find no reasonable benefit from discerning an "origin" or a "conclusion" to existence.. i find great benefit from discerning its proper relationship in the day-to-day affairs of mankind.. That there may be implications of spirit/soul continuation beyond the physical manifestation of our "Being" is a notion i favor.. i sense that we are not these aging bodies, we are the eternal energy that animates them.. that once the flesh expires so does so much of the identity associated with it.. that we are left with a pos/neg accrual of energies based on our intentions during the brief physical experience.. and that accrual sets up further experiences/manifestations as generally pos/neg..

OOPS.. i just realized how much i've been rambling off-topic, sorry....

Be Well...

[Christopher M]

I am certain fire is hot...

If by 'hot' you mean the mere sensation, rather than any sort of intellectual understanding of it, then you're not, by definition, referring to any intellectual understanding of which we could be certain or not, which is what at stake in philosophy and science.

On the other hand, if by 'hot' you mean more than the mere sensation, then in fact you're not absolutely certain about it. You're not absolutely certain you're feeling a kind of energy or even that the object exists.

So, in either case, your example is moot.

Some may bow to the GODS of science, but I do not!

No one is talking about bowing down to Gods (other than you). The issue at stake is whether we have substantial reason to believe evolution, and we do; whether evolution stands as a scientific fact, and it does.

Implying an ID is trivial to YOU!!! Not to everyone!! To many it is the most important thing in their lives!

The fact that many people find it important doesn't make it reasonable in the logical sense.

Be careful not to pass judgment on that which you know nothing about!

To the contrary, it's precisely my interest in truth which has lead me to the reasons why your argument is false.

You've yet to give even a single reason why anyone believe your case. Believing something for which there are no reasons hardly counts as a pursuit of truth -- again, exactly the contrary: this is the dogged clinging to ignorance.

[Nick Forrer]

Chris M is correct

The fact that a belief may be wrong does not mean

a) that it is wrong
or b) that we should not or cannot include it amongst our beliefs

Instead we have to look to the evidence available and make conjectures based on that evidence. Theories which have expanatory power and which fit the evidence available should be accepted provisionally until such time as evidence arises that doesnt fit into the theory in which case we must either discard or modify the theory

On the other hand if we confine admissible beliefs to only what we can be certain i.e. those that admit no possibility of error we are left with:

a) logical truisms ( e.g. I know that whatever else may be true of him, if Doug is a bachelor Doug is unmarried)
and
b) direct sensations (such as the senation of heat - without making any further ontological assumptions about the sensation itself i.e. that it inheres in something or is caused by something)

And this is of course an intolerable situation. Indeed as Hume notes you simply cant exist in the world without forming beliefs over and above those which are certain.

On the other hand to qoute Bertrand Russell, ignorance is not a license to believe whatever we like...it is just ignorance and we must be honest with ourselves about it.

Turning to evolution then there are a number of basic points to consider:

1) As individuals our particular characteristics are the products of our parents combined DNA plus mutations (this is obvious from the fact that for example a child of black and white parents will have brown skin)
2) certain bequeathed characteristics will serve us better in our environment than others (e.g. a giraffe with a long neck will find it easier to eat then one with a short neck)
3) those who have more advantageous characteristics are more likely to survive than others that dont and hence mate and hence pass on those characteristics
4) thus over time certain characteristics will become prevalent whilst others will die out

Now is there anyone who disagrees with any of these points? They seem to me to be self evident and uncontentious. Moreover the theory of evolution would seem to follow logically when you look at this pattern over a long term. It also makes sense of and is assisted by plate tectonics (continental drift), carbon dating and the fossil record.

[YMC]

Hi All,

Don't have time to read everything yet; but I just remembered something that is kind of off-topic, but maybe has meaning to this conversation. This November I was at the Society for Neuroscience convention (held in D.C. this year) where the Dali Lama was giving a keynote address. He was supposed to talk about bridging the gap between meditation/mind over matter and how science can begin to quantify such things, but he gave an impromtu talk instead (it was funny because the newspapers all reported that he talked about mediation...I guess they just went with the press release).

In it he talked about his love of science as a child and he brought up a point he made years ago; (I'm paraphrasing a lot here) He said that Science and Buddism are both searching for the truth, but if what we know today about the world based on science is different from the cosmology of Buddist texts, then Buddist must revise their cosmology.

As a funny sidenote; at then end of the speach, he was asked a leading question; what he thought of the whole ID debate (the political one, not the one we are having here now). He paused, laughed and said; The problem is that in the US, you have a deistic system, Buddism is not that. It's your problem, figure it out for yourself!

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Now is there anyone who disagrees with any of these points? They seem to me to be self evident and uncontentious. Moreover the theory of evolution would seem to follow logically when you look at this pattern over a long term. It also makes sense of and is assisted by plate tectonics (continental drift), carbon dating and the fossil record.

I sense that most observers would tend to favor evolution as a satisfactory process leading to the physical world as we perceive it.. i also sense that there is the question of the "origin of evolution", random chance or inspired by ID.. ID, of course, not introducing assigned personalities (i.e.: "God").. but, some form of consciousness/intelligence.. it is not without merit to reason that there is some level of design/purpose to the evolutionary process.. Scott has presented a compelling discourse that supports ID.. i do not link ID with "creationism", ID may be as simple as a little nudge to initiate the evolutionary process, the process left to determine its own destiny.. The link between ID and "God" is a deceptive tactic used by "God" worshipers in an attempt to legitimize their beliefs.. ID may just as well be a primitive survival instinct inherent to the universe as a whole/collective.. it only suggests that it is not simply a chance occurance, that there may be forces and possibilities with purposes sufficiently plausible to initiate the evolutionary process..

I do not sense a "Cosmic Dictator" with its own version of Law and Order, intimately scrutinizing the affairs of mankind.. i sense a Universe exploring its own existence..

Be well..

[Ou Ji]

I'm loosly following this thread and was not planning on commenting because you guys are way beyond me but a thought came to mind.

Now hopefully I won't be stuck into one side of the discussion because the reason I stayed out is because I don't have a belief one way or the other.

But, I noticed the tendency to argue for ID by claiming it as a starting point or initiator and that evolution can proceed after this ID nudge and take over from there.

This might be minor but could it be considered that evolution expands into and is guided by a framework of ID? I'm sure I'm not saying anything new and I haven't read every bit of this thread but I didn't notice this in anything I did read.

I've always thought that if ID exists he/it would be outside our physical world otherwise he/it would have to create himself/itself.

All in all and interesting discussion. Wish I knew more.

[Robbie]

Intelligent Design is from Creation Science is from Creationism is from a Fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity. Or to put it another way Fundamentalism beget Creationism beget Creation Science beget Intelligent Design. Each change was in specific response to the courts telling them that they can't teach their religion in school.

Scott,
I think you should look closer at the history of ID itself. Much of what you're saying is more of a theistic evolution stance. Minus the science which you don't understand. Sorry, but you are commenting on things which you need to study specifically to understand. If you understood entropy as a whole you wouldn't use it to justify your beliefs. What you have been told is wrong. Ask someone who uses the concept, what they think of the 3rd law of thermodynamics blocking evolution and you will get an honest answer.
Remember before Darwin almost all the worlds scientists agreed that some higher power had a direct hand in creating man. 30 years later that was reversed. That is the power of explaining something in a manner everyone can use. Many are still religious but they don't deny evolution whenever they walk into church.
I hope you have had time to read the Kitzmiller decision. Here is a link you can use to read the trial transcripts themselves. http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/ it's on the left hand margin.
So long as you identify yourself with ID you're going to have problems. ID is not a theology or philosophy. It was created specifically to get around the 1987 decision that Creation Science was religious bunk. It is bunk. If you want to be a naturalist go for it, but please learn about each of these issues instead of accepting what you are told from PR groups like the Discovery Institute.