My Case for Intelligent design behind existence

@Joe,

Joe wrote:

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

Sorry, I wasn't clear at all. You don't have to have prior scientific theory of ID as a starting assumption; that can be introduced as required. But you'd need some accepted theory in order to show how parts of it are consistent with data so long as ID is not false, and/or how, especially in the case of ID, some are inconsistent with both data and other theory and experimental results.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

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!

Uh... no. You have it all wrong.

As I stated as a defintion of 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 is true! Then it would be science. If ID was true then science of it would be a study of the laws and operations put into place by the intelligent designer.

IF your theory of a fart in a bathtub were true, then, it would be science as to the laws surrounding the 'fart in a bathtub'.

Do you understand? You presuppose it as false. If it is true then it is science and everything 'you' take as science much of it would be false. (big bang, evolution etc...)

@click here,

click here wrote:

Uh... no. You have it all wrong.

As I stated as a defintion of 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 is true! Then it would be science. If ID was true then science of it would be a study of the laws and operations put into place by the intelligent designer.

IF your theory of a fart in a bathtub were true, then, it would be science as to the laws surrounding the 'fart in a bathtub'.

Do you understand? You presuppose it as false. If it is true then it is science and everything 'you' take as science much of it would be false. (big bang, evolution etc...)

I think you're missing the point, click.

Intelligent design is not a science since there is no testable hypothesis; there is no evidence supporting a claim, but merely an interpretation of facts to meet a desired end. Science can never explain the ultimate "Why", but can explain the "How". If the world originated from a fart in a bathtub, science could have place. However, if you made the claim the world originated from a fart in a bathtub by a benevolent god, science would be of no more use. Throwing in abstract ideas that cannot be evaluated in our physical realm is beyond the grasp of science.

It's apparent that you're taking a rather abstract approach here, but you must be aware of the differences.

Quote:

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

Isn't that what we already do now? Really, you can call all of this what you will, but if we knew all of this was from an "intelligent designer", what would it change? Nothing, scientifically. Science has no grasp of intent, click. Science would be science regardless of the supposed *design* behind the layout. Spouting "intelligent designer" is out of the realm of science.

@click here,

click here wrote:

Uh... no. You have it all wrong.

As I stated as a defintion of 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 is true! Then it would be science. If ID was true then science of it would be a study of the laws and operations put into place by the intelligent designer.

IF your theory of a fart in a bathtub were true, then, it would be science as to the laws surrounding the 'fart in a bathtub'.

Do you understand? You presuppose it as false. If it is true then it is science and everything 'you' take as science much of it would be false. (big bang, evolution etc...)

I don't presuppose ID to be false when I say it isn't science. I presuppose it be false when I say I don't believe in it, when I describe it, as I have, as 'clap-trap' or a 'fairy tale'. THAT is presupposing it as false.

When I say it isn't a science it is because it falls short of the actual criteria to be one, not because it falls outside your own personal definition of science. I have already stated what constitutes a science. That isn't the same as what you have said, so there lies the discrepancy. But either way, I never presupposed it to be false in that claim. Anyone reading my posts could see quite clearly what I meant by 'science' or 'not science' as I have made the distinction many times over. You may disagree with the definition I have referred to, but I'm not going to adopt yours any time soon either, as it is useless to me in my field. End of conversation, I suppose. [sniff]

EDIT: I think I can see the confusion here, so I'll try and clear it up.

If ID were true and ID were a science, ID would make correct predictions about natural phenomena that would not occur if ID weren't true.

If ID were not true and ID were a science, ID would fail to correctly predict such phenomena.

Neither of the above are true, since ID does not provide testable predictions. This says nothing about whether ID is true or not, but since the above two possibilities cover all the possibilities for ID as science, ID can be said without any doubt to NOT be a science.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I think you're missing the point, click.

And you are missing a point as well. I do deviate from click in one aspect. If ID were true, that would not disprove evolution. It is possible God chose evolution as the means to the end. (But please don't take that to mean I accept progressive evolution, because I don't. I simply concede the possibility).

Further, it is true that most people associate ID with evangelical Christianity. Given this assumed connection between "intelligence" and "God", something nonscientific is dragged into the mix. I don't defend ID because I don't like some of the tactics used by its main proponents. I find them disingenous, and that saddens me.

But let us separate "intelligence" from insisting that the bearer of the intelligence be a spiritual being in some way. Let us restrict our discussion to whatever effects this "intelligence" may have had on the physical world. Let us only ask if we can find evidence of intelligence in physics, biology, etc.

If you then reject that question, you are rejecting a valid scientific question. So, there is a valid scientific question within ID. Unfortunately, it has been wrapped in other things that can be validly rejected as unscientific.

It remains that a search for intelligence is a valid question. And it is testable. That we may not yet have the tools in hand is irrelevant. There were many questions of particle physics that could not be tested until the latest accelerator was built. It is not that we have the tools in hand, but that it is plausible to pursue building the tools.

If you want to ask the value of pursuing it, I'd have a hard time defending that. But then I also think SETI is a waste of money as well as many of the projects being sponsored in quantum and particle physics and a whole host of other ill-conceived endeavors.

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

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

Error mostly lies in the inappropriate application of tools and the misinterpretation of their results. The tools themselves are much more consistent and quantifiable than human logic and human bias. You can do a billion identical measurements using an imperfect tool and establish its degree of error -- and therefore take that error into account when using it to study something. But what if the operator fails to take error into account?

Resha Caner wrote:

Tools always require human manipulation in some form.

Yes, the same brain that is charged with interpreting what the eyes and ears perceive.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I think you're missing the point, click.

Intelligent design is not a science since there is no testable hypothesis; there is no evidence supporting a claim, but merely an interpretation of facts to meet a desired end. Science can never explain the ultimate "Why", but can explain the "How". If the world originated from a fart in a bathtub, science could have place. However, if you made the claim the world originated from a fart in a bathtub by a benevolent god, science would be of no more use. Throwing in abstract ideas that cannot be evaluated in our physical realm is beyond the grasp of science.

It's apparent that you're taking a rather abstract approach here, but you must be aware of the differences.

Isn't that what we already do now? Really, you can call all of this what you will, but if we knew all of this was from an "intelligent designer", what would it change? Nothing, scientifically. Science has no grasp of intent, click. Science would be science regardless of the supposed *design* behind the layout. Spouting "intelligent designer" is out of the realm of science.

Nah the difference with intelligent design is that there is a creator instead of big bang? and design instead of chance.

ID talks about origin. Just as atheistic science (would you call it that?) has its theories of big bang, evolution etc...

Ofcourse related to things like physics, biology, math etc... We experience it now and whether there was an ID or big bang doesn't effect what has come into existence.

'atheistic science' (i'm referring to origin of the universe) has no proof for its truth. It may have 'evidence' but all of it can be questioned etc...

The point is ID and 'atheistic science' neither have solid evidence to prove either origin. They are mutually exclusive. (if one is true the other is false) If either of them were to be PROVEN true then it would then join another genre of science.

Maybe we should just ignore both in school since neither are yet proven. Or maybe both should be taught?

Stop presupposing one as false. Think about the chance that either could be true as right now you can't say otherwise no matter how hard you try.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

I don't presuppose ID to be false when I say it isn't science. I presuppose it be false when I say I don't believe in it, when I describe it, as I have, as 'clap-trap' or a 'fairy tale'. THAT is presupposing it as false.

When I say it isn't a science it is because it falls short of the actual criteria to be one, not because it falls outside your own personal definition of science. I have already stated what constitutes a science. That isn't the same as what you have said, so there lies the discrepancy. But either way, I never presupposed it to be false in that claim. Anyone reading my posts could see quite clearly what I meant by 'science' or 'not science' as I have made the distinction many times over. You may disagree with the definition I have referred to, but I'm not going to adopt yours any time soon either, as it is useless to me in my field. End of conversation, I suppose. [sniff]

I got my defintion here:
science definition | Dictionary.com

sci⋅ence

/ˈsaɪ

http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png

əns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation

http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif

[sahy-uh

ns] Show IPA Pronunciation

-noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Also read what I wrote to Zetherin as I think that pertains to my discussion with you.

Note taken Resh.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

Aedes and others ii the thread

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

Hello Alan.

You may have a stronger argument if you acknowledge the fact that the true ID "theory" has nothing to do with god. It doesn't even try to explain the origin of the cosmos, nor the origin of life itself, for that matter. It simply provides a scientific model for classifying the flora and fauna on earth. It is an aid to understanding the structural similarities of related species. It actually explains no more (and no less) than the theory of evolution tries to explain. And, it is considered just as scientific.

As is the case when people use the term god, the term science is being used here just as haphazardly. There is a big difference between traditional science and forensic science. The difference lies in the subject matter of that which is being studied. When humans talk about science in general, they usually imply that the subject is not intelligent or a product of intelligence, whether it be rocks, cheetahs, or the images in the milky way. The subject is normally either static or predictable enough to be scientifically characterized.

Now, when you introduce the possibility that the subject itself is intelligent, people quickly overlook the fact that psychological components (such as deceptive intent) come into play and must be accounted for, in a scientific sense. Thus, forensic science is more applicable to the question of ID than traditional science is.

It is not a big deal that ID "theory" is not appropriate for traditional scientists, because they can't handle the truth anyway.

@Alan McDougall,

Resha wrote:

It remains that a search for intelligence is a valid question. And it is testable. That we may not yet have the tools in hand is irrelevant. There were many questions of particle physics that could not be tested until the latest accelerator was built. It is not that we have the tools in hand, but that it is plausible to pursue building the tools.

What kind of tools could evaluate "intelligence"? It would simply be an interpretation of facts, do you not see? Of course you could say patterns of life exist, and shoot at me the anthropic principle, but that does not prove "intelligence", it simply proves things do add up. Asking "why" it adds up deviates from science!!

Resha wrote:

But let us separate "intelligence" from insisting that the bearer of the intelligence be a spiritual being in some way. Let us restrict our discussion to whatever effects this "intelligence" may have had on the physical world. Let us only ask if we can find evidence of intelligence in physics, biology, etc.

You cannot separate these. For to say "intelligence" implies a designer, does it not? Design is a form of creation. Or are you supposing that something just inserted "intelligence" upon the world, didn't actually create it, and then left biology to run it's course? To discuss whatever effects the "intelligence" may have had on the physical world, is to assume there is evidence of "intelligence". Sorry buddy, this doesn't fly, and none of this is science.

Click wrote:

Stop presupposing one as false. Think about the chance that either could be true as right now you can't say otherwise no matter how hard you try.

There is a difference between the big bang and intelligent design. I can't grasp what you're not understanding. I'm not presupposing either is true or false, but merely that they are different kinds of claims. One can be evaluated by science, one cannot. If we took your perspective, everything could be regarded as science. NO!

@Aedes,

click here wrote:

Nah the difference with intelligent design is that there is a creator instead of big bang? and design instead of chance.

Cool. A very interesting point, click.

Aedes wrote:

Error mostly lies in the inappropriate application of tools and the misinterpretation of their results. The tools themselves are much more consistent and quantifiable than human logic and human bias.

Yes, tools are often more repeatable than humans. I mentioned their precision. But that does not speak to their fallibility. I can go to the best machining center in the world and make the straightest 12" ruler in the world, and it will tell me time after time how flat my desk is. But if I then conclude the earth is flat ...

At best I would concede that tools are neutral. They tell us nothing but what we ask them to tell us. It is then the human who succeeds or fails.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

What kind of tools could evaluate "intelligence"? It would simply be an interpretation of facts, do you not see? Of course you could say patterns of life exist, and shoot at me the anthropic principle, but that does not prove "intelligence", it simply proves things do add up. Asking "why" it adds up deviates from science!!

You cannot separate these. For to say "intelligence" implies a designer, does it not?

I agree, the implications are explosive. But so are the implications of the many singularities found in current cosmology. That should not lead us to avoid the question if it is valid.

So, are you saying that science never involves interpretation? Wow. I want a reference on that. In the mean time, you might want to study the debate over inductive methods in science.

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

Yes, tools are often more repeatable than humans. I mentioned their precision. But that does not speak to their fallibility. I can go to the best machining center in the world and make the straightest 12" ruler in the world, and it will tell me time after time how flat my desk is. But if I then conclude the earth is flat ...

And like I said in my previous post, the error comes in a misapplication of the tool and a misinterpretation of its results. So it's not the tool that's fallible in this case. A very accurate tool can give the right answer to the wrong question. A very precise but inaccurate tool can give the same answer many times yet be wrong, whatever the question. Our job is to know our tools as well as possible -- and the more important their job, the better we need to know them.

Resha Caner wrote:

At best I would concede that tools are neutral. They tell us nothing but what we ask them to tell us. It is then the human who succeeds or fails.

Exactly. We agree. There are good tools and bad tools. But we're fallible whether or not we employ tools other than our own sense organs and brain. Science as a discipline systematizes observations so as to create confidence -- that's sort of what it boils down to in the end.

The degree to which we can trust science depends in part on how closely we stick to our observations. This is a BIG issue in clinical research, in which a lot of big trials have been done in white American adult men -- but this is NOT always 100% translatable to other ethnicities, other nationalities, other age groups, and to women. Similarly, a given finding about, say, evolution might or might not be translatable to a general theory about the origins of life -- but if it corroborates lots of other research then you'll have more confidence extrapolating from such a finding.

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

I agree, the implications are explosive. But so are the implications of the many singularities found in current cosmology. That should not lead us to avoid the question if it is valid.

So, are you saying that science never involves interpretation? Wow. I want a reference on that. In the mean time, you might want to study the debate over inductive methods in science.

Science cannot explain the ultimate "Why's?" but can explain the "How's". Have you ever encountered a scientific theory that encompassed something of a mystical nature (yes, this includes intelligent design, as much as you say it does not)? NO! You could not, as the scientific method is not involved with having hypotheses that can not be testable! The induction method of science revolves around Observation and Experiment. How can you observe or devise an experiment to test "intelligence"?! You can't. Therefore, science has nothing to do with the claim of ID.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

the scientific method is not involved with having hypotheses that can not be testable!

To be fair, there is a LOT of scientific research that is not hypothesis-driven. For instance, the human genome project, or proteomics, or archeological digs, or sampling rocks from the surface of Mars, or amplifying DNA from seawater to identify unknown bacterial species, or high throughput drug discovery...

This is not hypothesis-driven research. It's more a kind of cataloguing, with the intent of allowing other research questions to be better answered, or identifying patterns and findings that ARE worthy of hypotheses.

Of course, this is different than speculation that does not lend itself to any sort of observational process.

Intelligent design theorists have access to all the science ever generated and published. But the difficulty is making that tell a story of "intelligent design" that is a compelling alternative to the much more parsimonious idea that intelligent design is unnecessary.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

There is a difference between the big bang and intelligent design. I can't grasp what you're not understanding. I'm not presupposing either is true or false, but merely that they are different kinds of claims. One can be evaluated by science, one cannot. If we took your perspective, everything could be regarded as science. NO!

Maybe I just don't know enough about the big bang theory or any other theories. Are there other theories?

Just as 'big bang' can be aided by 'evidence' so can ID be aided by 'evidence'.

I say 'evidence' because neithers 'evidence' conclusively proves either to be true.

I'm not sure what you think I am not understanding.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

To be fair, there is a LOT of scientific research that is not hypothesis-driven. For instance, the human genome project, or proteomics, or archeological digs, or sampling rocks from the surface of Mars, or amplifying DNA from seawater to identify unknown bacterial species, or high throughput drug discovery...

This is not hypothesis-driven research. It's more a kind of cataloguing, with the intent of allowing other research questions to be better answered, or identifying patterns and findings that ARE worthy of hypotheses.

This involves Observation, a very important part of scienctific research, as you've noted. There could never be *findings* for "intelligent design" as there could be for the human genome project, archeological digs, or rock sampling, since there is nothing verifiable. The point isn't necessarily the lack of hypothesis, but the fact that "intelligence" cannot be observed or tested; it is an interpretation of facts already observed and tested.

Quote:

Intelligent design theorists have access to all the science ever generated and published. But the difficulty is making that tell a story of "intelligent design" that is a compelling alternative to the much more parsimonious idea that intelligent design is unnecessary.

It's quite the difficulty. Until a benevolent god (or any abstract mystical notion) can be scientifically proven, you will never see intelligent design scientifically proven.

click here wrote:

Maybe I just don't know enough about the big bang theory or any other theories. Are there other theories?

Just as 'big bang' can be aided by 'evidence' so can ID be aided by 'evidence'.

I say 'evidence' because neithers 'evidence' conclusively proves either to be true.

I'm not sure what you think I am not understanding.

No, intelligent design cannot be aided by scientific evidence. This is what you're not understanding. The types of evidences are different, not only in how they're acquired, but the methods used to make sense of them! Refer to the Aliens thread if you want more clarification of how this *evidence* differs.

@click here,

click here wrote:

I got my defintion here:
science definition | Dictionary.com

sci⋅ence

/ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sahy-uhns] Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Also read what I wrote to Zetherin as I think that pertains to my discussion with you.

Note taken Resh.

As, so you just chose one of seven dictionary definitions from a chosen dictionary, edited it down to get rid of the bit about mathematical science and that makes ID science?

Dictionary.com isn't exactly anyone's source for deciding what is and isn't science. If I were to refer to a dictionary, which ordinarily I wouldn't, I'd go for something I bit more prestigious, such as...

Cambridge wrote:

1 (knowledge obtained from) the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by observing, measuring and experimenting, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities:
pure/applied science
recent developments in science and technology
Space travel is one of the marvels/wonders of modern science.

2 [C or U] a particular subject that is studied using scientific methods:
physical sciences
Economics is not an exact science.
advances in medical science

3 the study of science:
a science graduate/teacher
a science course/lesson

ID falls short of all three (and that was all of them). So dictionaries don't have a consensus on what science is... Probably best leave them out of it, then.

Seriously, we're not going to get anywhere on this. It doesn't matter what online source either of us use to define science, a theory will or won't be deemed scientific by the science community based entirely on its predictive power. Much worthier theories than ID have been dismissed on these grounds. Accept it, don't accept it, but I'm not presupposing the falsity or otherwise of ID when I say it is not science.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Science cannot explain the ultimate "Why's?" but can explain the "How's". Have you ever encountered a scientific theory that encompassed something of a mystical nature (yes, this includes intelligent design, as much as you say it does not)? NO! You could not, as the scientific method is not involved with having hypotheses that can not be testable! The induction method of science revolves around Observation and Experiment. How can you observe or devise an experiment to test "intelligence"?! You can't. Therefore, science has nothing to do with the claim of ID.

So you assume that something that isn't testable is false? Interesting....

Or are you merely just saying that because it isn't 'testable' that it isn't science because that is how you view the definition of science - something that is testible through science.

If we are to, for hypothetical conjecture, assume ID to be true to some extent or another (primarily the extent of their acctually being an ID) then where does that take us. Maybe we would then need to create a new genre of study, religious fact? You know like math, physics, history etc...

So then that would trump science. That is because religion is not testable by science but we would still know it is a fact. So if religion is true it precedes science. Then calling ID science would be a bad idea as it would be reducing it to the same relm as earthly speculation....

Hmm maybe there is some sense in not calling ID science...

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

The point isn't necessarily the lack of hypothesis, but the fact that "intelligence" cannot be observed or tested; it is an interpretation of facts already observed and tested.

Einstein reinterpreted facts already observed and tested as well. This is why Kuhn is a much more compelling philosopher of science than Popper. The idea of a paradigm shift is essential, because even our judgement of verifiability will change based on how our paradigm allows us to look at the world.

That doesn't necessarily mean that ANYTHING should be considered possible or true just because it's been uttered and imagined, but on the other hand we need to talk frankly about method (as you mention) in order to at least know where to look.

click here wrote:

Maybe I just don't know enough about the big bang theory or any other theories. Are there other theories?

Gravity? Thermodynamics? Electromagnetism? Economics? All evidence-based.

Philosophy Forum

My Case for Intelligent design behind existence

Quick Links

My Account

able2know