My Case for Intelligent design behind existence

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Zetetic11235
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 05:48 pm
@Joe,
I had always thought it to be the case that ID was simply a reconciliation of the idea of creationism with evolution, but it seems that this is not the case as it puts forward that : "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

This assertion is unbelievably narrow minded. Why is it so difficult to conceive of the tendencies of nature such as natural selection as an intended consequence and have faith that the seemingly imperfect might have a use and be requisite for something not yet realized when one has the faith to simply jump on board such presumptuous conclusions. I do not have the aforementioned faith, though I would say that absolute certainty in respect to any process/object is premature and uncalled for.

Even when one 'knows' something to be the case, a subtle discovery can easily contradict them. Of course it is best to work in the framework we have assuming it to be the most correct one we have access to though not necessarily the be-all end-all.

Is it not much easier and more reasonable to simply say that evolution is simply in the plan of god which we cannot understand? The entire controversy is based on false premises which judge the nature of god such as that: evolution would indicate that god has created something imperfect, thus it implies that god is imperfect. This is absurd, presumptuous and ignorant. How can an observed pattern of natural behavior indicate something about what is taken to be unknowable? If the intelligence is beyond ours, how can we presume to fathom it? Yet those who most boisterously proclaim belief are the quickest to assume the worst and impose their wills on what 'clearly must be the case' in respect to god.
 
Joe
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 06:51 pm
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
The scientific evidence (not proof) for ID would be that some empirically measured event is inconsistent with the conjecture that ID is not true, given prior accepted theory. Logical proof (not evidence) would be a contradiction in the statement that ID is not true, given a set of stated propositions. Right?


I guess. But if Prior accepted theory doesn't waver any opinions on intelligent design, how can you use whats not stated. Its an empty attempt because its based on assumption. What I'm asking is how do you infer where the assumption is right or wrong, Logically?

peace
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 07:41 pm
@Joe,
Why are we using the term Intelligent Design?

The term ID was introduced when the notion of Creationism had been ridiculed into the ground. They refer to the exact same hypothesis.

Believe whatever you want - that's your prerogative. However, the fact remains that the arguments in favor of Creationism have been thoroughly shredded. Irreducible complexity has been shown to be demonstrably false.

Creationism is this: the attempt to replace scientific inquiry with fundamentalist interpretations of scripture.

Alan, the web site you provided with Biblical quotes was, well, silly. No offense.

"the rotation of the earth (Job 38:12,14) "
Job 38:12: "Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;"
Job 38:14 "It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment."
Neither of these passages suggest that the Earth rotates on an axis. Considering the verse in between these two, Job 38:13 "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?"
The clear conclusion is that not only do these passages have nothing to do with the Earth's rotation, but that these passages have nothing to do with science at all.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible is not a science book and that the Bible says little, if anything at all about science.

Remember folks: reading scripture literally is a modern development and is, according to nearly every respected theologian known to man, a serious mistake. The texts were simply not written to be read literally.
 
Joe
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 07:53 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Why are we using the term Intelligent Design?


Because it is a term that does not completely represent Creationism. Sorry but it is different. It does not claim any religion. Some claim it can, but thats not WHAT ID is.

Quote:
The term ID was introduced when the notion of Creationism had been ridiculed into the ground. They refer to the exact same hypothesis.


Same thing, different method. Whats wrong with that?

Quote:
Believe whatever you want - that's your prerogative.


Best opinion Ive heard.

Quote:
However, the fact remains that the arguments in favor of Creationism have been thoroughly shredded. Irreducible complexity has been shown to be demonstrably false.


ID is not creationism. Demonstration is just that, a demonstration. Hardly an argument for fact or ultimate proof.


peace
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 08:10 pm
@Joe,
Joe wrote:
Because it is a term that does not completely represent Creationism. Sorry but it is different. It does not claim any religion. Some claim it can, but thats not WHAT ID is.


No, you are incorrect. Go check out the history of a book called Of Pandas and People. The earliest versions used the term "creationism". Once creationism had been ridiculed to the point where it was a joke in the scientific community the manuscript was edited - "creationism" was replace with "intelligent design".

Some ID proponents claim that ID does not claim any religion, however, this is demonstrably false given the history of the movement.

Joe wrote:
Same thing, different method. Whats wrong with that?


Except that the methods are not different. The terms are interchangeable, which is evident by the fact that those who coined these two terms have used them interchangeably.

If you check the earlier versions of Of Pandas... against the published versions, you find the exact same definition given for both creationism and ID. The exact same definition.

Joe wrote:
ID is not creationism. Demonstration is just that, a demonstration. Hardly an argument for fact or ultimate proof.


I really recommend you check into the history of the aforementioned book. I think PBS has a documentary on the matter.

As for fact and ultimate proof - that's beside the point. Science does not deal with ultimate proofs: instead we look at relevant phenomenon, and see which hypothesis best explains said phenomenon. So far, evolution is a far better explanation and creationism is riddled with problematic and demonstrably false claims. Evolution is the better theory: this is not to say evolution is absolutely true, and no scientists would claim that evolution is absolutely true.
Science progresses and changes. Creationism is a religious suggestion, and as a scientific hypothesis, has no explanatory value.

The real death nail: we can test creationism. However, creationist proponents have never done so. If creationist scientists want their theory to be seriously considered by the scientific community they have an obligation to test the hypothesis: put up or shut up.
 
Joe
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 08:21 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Thanks for the information Didymos Thomas, I try to look into it. You seem to be very informed.

I guess my reaction now is of curiosity. Where does identifying creationism with ID explore the ideas without bias? If they are the same according to some or most or whatever, I fail to see this as anything new or productive. If you are making a case against ID thats fine but it doesn't seem to embrace any logical refute unless you say this is fact so that cannot be true. Very old school but outdated. I like scientific method. It is a building block, but there is nothing progressive about it, the ideas presented are what make it useful. Scientific method is not a argumentative point.

peace
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 08:39 pm
@Joe,
Identifying creationism with ID eliminates mistakes such as: 'ID is not tied to any particular religious notion'. This is important.

The attempt to separate the two terms is a smoke and mirrors trick on behalf of ID/creationism proponents.

I'm a big fan of what Confucius called 'the rectification of names'. That is, we should call something what it is; our terminology should be accurate. The attempt to relabel creationism as ID is an intentional attempt to mislead the public about the nature of the subject. Now, this is not an intentional attempt on the part of, for example you Joe, or Alan, but rather an intentional attempt on the part of those 'thinkers' who write books and articles on the subject. Behe and his peers are pulling the wool over your eyes - don't let them trick you like that.

The fact that ID and creationism are the very same notion does not, in itself, refute the notion. You are right to question the legitimacy of such an argument. But that's not the point I was trying to make: sorry for any confusion.

I argue that creationism is wrong because the hypothesis, in which ever incarnation you please, makes false assertions; the great example being irreducible complexity.

Even if we eliminate these assertions, and simplify the hypothesis to "the universe is the product of an intelligent creator", though we cannot rightly say the hypothesis is false, we can say that the hypothesis lacks explanatory power and is the weaker hypothesis when compared to the immensely useful theory of evolution.

I say this as a theist: as do many scientists. Evolution is absolutely no threat to faith, only a threat to fundamentalist faith.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 09:02 pm
@Resha Caner,
Resha Caner;49074 wrote:
You earlier gave the impression that ID should not be discussed in a science classroom. You now say worldviews are fair game. It sounds contradictory to me, so I want some clarification.
Worldviews are only fair game insofar as they can 1) illuminate the long history of science, 2) be supplanted and modified by empirical science as it arises, and 3) allow people to discuss current events as pertains to science and its relationship with the human experience.

That is different than discussing "intelligent design" as if it's a legitimate alternative to science.

Resha Caner wrote:
At this point all I have tried to indicate is that the question of intelligence is valid, and that methods exist for studying intelligence.
Studying the intelligence of lab rats or of third graders is different than studying the intelligence of a proposed creator of the universe. I mean you can ask the same question about chemistry. Yes, chemical composition is a valid scientific question. Now how about the chemical composition of the creator of the universe? How about the mass of the creator of the universe? UV spectral absorption? Charge? Velocity? Location? Blood pressure? Why not apply ANY legitimate scientific question to this designer? Will it be any more or less fruitful than discussing intelligence? Do we have any more evidence that it's an intelligent designer and not a crazy designer or a hypertensive designer?

Resha Caner wrote:
This is an empiricist's answer.
Science is an empiricist's discipline. Intelligent design does not submit itself to empirical study.

Resha Caner wrote:
Such arguments are inherently circular and don't establish anything.
ALL arguments, in the end, are circular if you go back far enough. You get to the back-end of the circle a lot sooner when there is no evidence to support an argument, though. Furthermore, scientists can easily break the circular accusation with the easy and honest admission that we don't know everything, so there can always be holes in our explanation.

Resha Caner wrote:
Once you move beyond taxonomy, biology is no longer direct experience, but the effect created by tools
So is taxonomy... because morphologic taxonomy as practiced by Linnaeus has been completely refined by molecular techniques...

Resha Caner wrote:
biology is no longer direct experience, but the effect created by tools (such as a microscope).
Our eyes are tools. Our ears are tools. Our logic is a tool. Our alertness is a tool. These are FAR more fallable than the instruments we design.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 09:10 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Science is an empiricist's discipline. Intelligent design does not submit itself to empirical study.


There is no way to test irreducible complexity?
 
Joe
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 09:17 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Identifying creationism with ID eliminates mistakes such as: 'ID is not tied to any particular religious notion'. This is important.

The attempt to separate the two terms is a smoke and mirrors trick on behalf of ID/creationism proponents.

I'm a big fan of what Confucius called 'the rectification of names'. That is, we should call something what it is; our terminology should be accurate. The attempt to relabel creationism as ID is an intentional attempt to mislead the public about the nature of the subject. Now, this is not an intentional attempt on the part of, for example you Joe, or Alan, but rather an intentional attempt on the part of those 'thinkers' who write books and articles on the subject. Behe and his peers are pulling the wool over your eyes - don't let them trick you like that.

The fact that ID and creationism are the very same notion does not, in itself, refute the notion. You are right to question the legitimacy of such an argument. But that's not the point I was trying to make: sorry for any confusion.

I argue that creationism is wrong because the hypothesis, in which ever incarnation you please, makes false assertions; the great example being irreducible complexity.

Even if we eliminate these assertions, and simplify the hypothesis to "the universe is the product of an intelligent creator", though we cannot rightly say the hypothesis is false, we can say that the hypothesis lacks explanatory power and is the weaker hypothesis when compared to the immensely useful theory of evolution.

I say this as a theist: as do many scientists. Evolution is absolutely no threat to faith, only a threat to fundamentalist faith.


I also think that word play is not a formidable excuse to establish credit to a particular area. I have no doubt that there exists a contempt to switch positions of the viewer in order to create a different perception. Both truthfully and secretively. I will not object to the association of ID and creationism.

Quote:
Even if we eliminate these assertions, and simplify the hypothesis to "the universe is the product of an intelligent creator", though we cannot rightly say the hypothesis is false, we can say that the hypothesis lacks explanatory power and is the weaker hypothesis when compared to the immensely useful theory of evolution.


Agreed. I guess the burden is on the individuals who want push these ideas into mainstream acceptance. I wont lie though, I think we are making ground, based on the fact that The further we progress in science the more that has to be processed. I think alot of argument on both sides of the fence are leading to stronger acceptance of "Who knows". Thats the world I want to see. Very Happy

Peace
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 09:21 pm
@Joe,
I'd rather see science increasingly approach the truth than give up and say "who knows". If you want "who knows?" as an answer, you might as well argue that science should be abandoned, at least with respect to the origin of life.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 09:21 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Didymos Thomas;49154 wrote:
There is no way to test irreducible complexity?
That sub-argument is easy to test, but that argument even if true would not support intelligent design, as opposed to some other neutral natural phenomenon that lacks an intelligent, designing hand. ID advocates have levied a lot of arguments not to directly support ID, but rather to just find ways to poke holes in evolution. It's a fallacy. For instance, they also blather on about the inconsistency of evolution with the second law of thermodynamics (because evolution is a progressive process that creates order, but entropy is a matter of disorder and loss). This is a wild misunderstanding of BOTH evolutionary theory and thermodynamic theory.

The test of an intelligent designer, however, is the crux of the matter, and this is not accessible to empirical study.

Now, I'll immediately concede that there are many things we can't study for technical reasons. For instance, we can't study the language of australopithecines, because they're extinct. We can't study if there is life on Pluto because we can't go there. We can't study the moments preceding the Big Bang, if there were any. Etc.

So what makes intelligent design a fundamental problem with epistemology and not a mere technical problem within science? Simply because it's asking a question that goes right to the absolute, i.e. the ultimate explanation behind everything in existence and all phenomena, and there is no possible measure within that "everything" in order to verify ANY claim about the absolute phenomenon of an intelligent designer. Proof would require overt revelation, and I can tell you that even with overt revelation many people would not believe.
 
Joe
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 09:37 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
I'd rather see science increasingly approach the truth than give up and say "who knows". If you want "who knows?" as an answer, you might as well argue that science should be abandoned, at least with respect to the origin of life.


Origin of life is multi faceted. If your implying that I deny Evolution, I currently Do not. The notion of all existing matter and consciousness is more what I was implying. I do not want to ignore anything, but Accepting something as irrefutable is what I tend to believe as the fault of human intelligence. Long live science and Spirituality. Both are responsible for many enlightening applications.

peace
 
Resha Caner
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 10:17 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Worldviews are only fair game insofar as they can 1) illuminate the long history of science, 2) be supplanted and modified by empirical science as it arises, and 3) allow people to discuss current events as pertains to science and its relationship with the human experience.


Sorry, but this seems like equivocation to me. Speculation is allowed, but only speculation that meets rules approved by the establishment.

Aedes wrote:
Studying the intelligence of lab rats or of third graders is different than studying the intelligence of a proposed creator of the universe.


Very true. I don't disagree with you on that. And? Are we supposed to avoid the tough questions? Again I ask, if something was created, is it not plausible to suppose the effects can be seen in the physical world? What distinguishes "natural" from "created"? What happens if we assume everything must be natural? I think those are intriguing questions, but I suppose not everyone shares that.

Aedes wrote:
Science is an empiricist's discipline.


Empirical methods are important to science, but that is different from being an "empiricist" as defined in the strict sense. I would suspect true "empiricists" are rare because it backs one into a corner that is very difficult to defend. IMO, the truth lies between all the "isms" in the muddiness of reality, and people don't like to admit science struggles with the mud just as much as philosophy and religion ... unless you're talking about the canned science fed to elementary schools.

Aedes wrote:
So is taxonomy...


Alright. You would know better than me. But ...

Aedes wrote:
Our eyes are tools. Our ears are tools. Our logic is a tool. Our alertness is a tool. These are FAR more fallable than the instruments we design.


I don't agree with this. Tools can do things faster, stronger, with more precision or to greater extent, but that speaks little to whether or not they are fallible. I constantly deal with managers who think tools are smarter than people - that they can hire a monkey to push a button on a tool and get the same answer as a highly trained person. I haven't seen it work yet. Tools always require human manipulation in some form.
 
Pusyphus
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 12:04 am
@Alan McDougall,
Hate to be a party-pooper, but Intelligent Design originated in the seventies with the Raelian Movement. It was later hi-jacked indefinitely by the christian church, apparently for financial reasons...
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 06:26 am
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
Not always. If it is brought up in a theological or even philosophical conjecture, then groovy. Even as an atheist I often play God's advocate here on these forums. It's fine. What gets me 'hot under the collar' is the 'let's pretend' approach to science that people with a vested interest in undermining it play. After nigh on a thousand years of battling scientific progress, the best the fanatical could do was give science a bad name by associating ID with it. I've never met a scientist who didn't react the same way. It simply takes the pi55.
And another thing... if it were a science, it would be fringe science at best, like the Many Worlds Interpretation or Relational QM. This stuff gets studied by science students at earliest at postgrad level, so people have a good enough grounding not to be misguided by it. ID was forced on schoolkids. The purpose of ID is to indoctrinate children in order to make them less susceptible to the tests of faith real science may present them with by pretending there's a bit of science on their side. They're screwing with kids minds in order to perpetuate a religion. It's pretty despicable, so yeah... people get annoyed. Wouldn't you be annoyed if you had a child who learned that, for instance, the holocaust probably didn't happen, or that rattling bones in a cup is as good as penicilin?


I would like to say something kind of general. You state that ID can't be considered a science. You can't state that absolutely for to do that you would have to prove that it is false. For if it were true then it could defintetley be science.

Science: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"

If ID was true then science of it would be a study of the laws and operations put into place by the intelligent designer.

You can not simply discount ID as being science unless you can fully prove that it is false. For if it is true then it would be science.

So first prove that it is false and then you can talk about how it can't be a science.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 06:45 am
@Alan McDougall,
Aedes and others ii the thread


Quote:
The trouble with MOST people in the intelligent design community is that they want to interpose intelligent design as an idea into the science discussion in our country, including into science classrooms. And that's, quite simply, inappropriate. It's not science -- it's theology that coopts words used in science for rhetorical purposes; but a veneer of scientific legitimacy can't make something science if it doesn't use a scientific method.


I want to make it clear I am not religious and do not belong to community of thinking and make up my own mind where it is more logical to believe the universe just happened or was made by some much greater mind than ours

Taking this topic back to the most simple example, if an alien were to land on planet earth and find a watch in the lawn of the Taj Mahal He would KNOW that both these objects were build by some intelligence

But we are told to accept "a new faith" that the universe which is infinitely more complex than the two previous examples "is just a matter of chance"

The age of the universe, it is far too young, relative its unimaginable complex to have just happened by a blind accident of chance

To suggest that scientist simply dismiss the possibility of some great intelligence behind the fabric of the universe is just not true

I also belong to a physics scientific forum and believe me this topic comes up ull the time.

Maybe religion has high jacked this idea, (Big Bang mend the universe had a beginning thus it needed a creator, "their idea not mine")

Great physics like Fred Hoyle, Albert Einstein and even Stephen Hawking thought that their is/might be some intelligent force/mind behind the construction of the universe.

They we/were absolutely not theologians, they were/are all professing agnostics, reserving their position on the matter
 
Resha Caner
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 07:57 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Irreducible complexity has been shown to be demonstrably false.


Didymos, I wanted to back up and ask you more about this statement. I'm not always up to date, so maybe I've missed something. I didn't realize this was considered as proven false.

I could imagine specific examples have been explained as something other than irreducible complexity. But I can't figure out how this would be disproven as a concept. Maybe I missed something.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 08:35 am
@click here,
click here wrote:
I would like to say something kind of general. You state that ID can't be considered a science. You can't state that absolutely for to do that you would have to prove that it is false. For if it were true then it could defintetley be science.

Science: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"

If ID was true then science of it would be a study of the laws and operations put into place by the intelligent designer.

You can not simply discount ID as being science unless you can fully prove that it is false. For if it is true then it would be science.

So first prove that it is false and then you can talk about how it can't be a science.

Uh... no. It isn't a science, any more than an apple is a merry-go-round. This isn't a matter of proof, simply of determining whether ID meets the criteria of a science. It doesn't, for reasons already explained over and over here and for the same reasons science teachers in the US have explained over and over. Saying that you have to prove ID is false in order to prove it is not a science is just absurd.

Here's my 'theory'. The universe is a fart in a bathtub. Is this false? Who can say..? Is this science? No!
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 09:01 am
@Alan McDougall,
Resha Caner wrote:
This led me to believe you only skimmed my post. You've made assumption after assumption in that paragraph. First, I said I wasn't defending ID. Second, you didn't address any of my points but leapt to telling me how my faith causes me to ignore all sorts of obvious road signs. According to you I have no good reasons, I'm just ignoring what I want to ignore.

No, I read that you weren't defending ID; my point still stands. As I've already said, I was addressing the points I quoted you on. If I did not address any others it's because I had nothing to say about them, good or bad. And yes, religous people do ignore the fact that ID is not a science, a fact pointed out to them by every member of the science community who has been vocal on the subject, when peddling it as such. You aren't defending ID, okay. But you're defending the possibility of ID taught as science on grounds that are not just flimsy, but altogether false.

Resha Caner wrote:

You can think that if you want, but it's (what was your word) codswallop until you address what I said, not your preconceived notions of what I think.

Yeah, codswallop. I could have said something else, but I didn't want to make an edgy post. Ah well.

Resha Caner wrote:

Second, these quotes lead me to believe you haven't read much on the philosophy of science - that your expertise is confined to physics. Again, if I am wrong, inform me.

Yeah, my expertise does not extend to philosophy of any kind. Philosophy is a new area for me. What are you saying? That the people who adhere to the scientific method know less about it than the people who philosophise about science?

Resha Caner wrote:

Yes, "method" was taught to me, but never formally. No professor ever gave it the attention and rigor that went into, say, developing the Rayleigh-Ritz method or Lagrange's equations.

Well, it's not a mathematical method; it's a practical one. Why compare?

Resha Caner wrote:

No offense, but your outline of the scientific method amounts to what I would expect from an elementary school science textbook. I would think you have a better understanding of what "formal" means to a scientist. If it's so easy, you should be able to quote me the document from ISO, SI, somebody, that defines the scientific method.

[/quote]
None taken. Sure, it SHOULD be in all elementary school science textbooks. Whether it is or not, I don't know. Brain surgery it is not, but that's the method. Like I said, there's much literature on the subject. Check Wiki or something for some references. To my knowledge, we don't refer back to ISO or SI when learning/doing physics much. If I want to know how to use the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics I look it up in a book, any book from a reputable source. We don't go to ISO or SI. Does that make us confused? Is it not formal? Could we slip God in there somewhere?

Anyway, I think we're getting away from the point of contention: that there is some room for manoeuvre in the scientific method that allows for theories which have observations and conclusions but not testing of falsifiable hypotheses. This isn't true. ID is not a testable theory, therefore it is not, by definition, science.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 02:57:10