My Case for Intelligent design behind existence

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

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...

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.

Read what I wrote to Zetherin above.

@click here,

click here wrote:

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.

Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying! And it's not just how I view science, as if I'm pulling this out of my ass. You could shoot me any widely used definition of scientific method you'd like, and I'll tell you why it doesn't fit.

And again, I never said any of these claims were TRUE or FALSE, just as I could not say the claim "A benevolent God exists" is TRUE or FALSE. It could most definitely be TRUE to the consciousness rationalizing (as anything can exist notionally), but it would not involve science!

Quote:

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...

No, we wouldn't, and I've noted this earlier if you want to scroll up. Our science would not change because we discovered intent, how would it? Our understanding of mathematics, physics, and history would change because we knew there was intelligent design, how, and be specific?

Quote:

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....

Those that have an understanding of religion will know it doesn't trump science at all. These are two very different methods of reasoning, and should not be joined like I'm seeing here.

@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.

Hypothesis was but one phase of the scientific method. Scientific research carries out another phase of the scientific method, mostly in the cases you cite above the observation (data-gathering) phase. Each belongs to a science, and that science follows the method and as such contains hypotheses. None of what you cite is a scientific theory in itself.

ID proponents claim it to be a scientific theory, not a field of scientific research. It thus needs to have some predictive power, and this is driven by hypothesis.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

No, we wouldn't, and I've noted this earlier if you want to scroll up. Our science would not change because we discovered intent, how would it? Our understanding of mathematics, physics, and history would change because we knew there was intelligent design, how, and be specific?

woah woah I never said that math, phyics, and history or any of the like change if we know there is a ID. I never said that intent includes change.

Zetherin wrote:

Those that have an understanding of religion will know it doesn't trump science at all. These are two very different methods of reasoning, and should not be joined like I'm seeing here.

Oh but it accutually would. See if God exists then he created the laws that we use to prove or analyze things in bio, physics etc...

You can't argue that. God if creator of all thus created all things and ways that we analyze physics and bio. So he could change them. So religion if true trumps science.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Einstein reinterpreted facts already observed and tested as well.

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

His interpretation was not the same kind of interpretation we see here. He followed a mathematically deduced method for reinterpreting the world. These notions are considered theories of science because of their mathematical coherency. It must also be noted that he also attempted the unifying theory of everything through a mathematical lens, not through wild interpretation (as far as I know). There are methods of scientific reasoning, and then there abstract notions that should never be considered scientific.

Quote:

You can't argue that. God if creator of all thus created all things and ways that we analyze physics and bio. So he could change them. So religion if true trumps science.

Of course I could argue. What if my notion of God differed from yours? You're oversimplifying to the extreme. Not to mention, you're just tossing the word "religion" around like you have a complete understanding. Really, let's just get off of this; it's not worth debating in this thread.

@click here,

click here wrote:

Read what I wrote to Zetherin above.

I did.

click here wrote:

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.

The latter. That is how scientists view the definition of science.

click here wrote:

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...

How about as I named it above: Abstract theology.

click here wrote:

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....

If you could know it through unphysical means, e.g. through your soul, then it would be known. Would it trump science? Only if science could be shown to be wrong. Spend a day considering every single piece of technology you use directly or indirectly that depends on scientific theory. If you discovered ID was true, would they all cease operating? Would E cease to equal mc^2? Would objects cease to feel a gravitational pull toward the earth of ~ 10 m/s^2? Think about what you're saying.

click here wrote:

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

Maybe, maybe.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Of course I could argue. What if my notion of God differed from yours? You're oversimplifying to the extreme. Not to mention, you're just tossing the word "religion" around like you have a complete understanding. Really, let's just get off of this; it's not worth debating in this thread.

Oh yes I did just type that.
Did you not read what you quoted: "God if creator of all thus created all things and ways that we analyze physics and bio."

Specifically the part about creator of all the "ways that we analyze physics and bio"?

I stated my notion right there ^^^

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

How about as I named it above: Abstract theology.

Or not... because as I stated in my example that we were assuming it to be true. You don't call something that you know to be true abstract.

Bones-O! wrote:

If you could know it through unphysical means, e.g. through your soul, then it would be known. Would it trump science? Only if science could be shown to be wrong. Spend a day considering every single piece of technology you use directly or indirectly that depends on scientific theory. If you discovered ID was true, would they all cease operating? Would E cease to equal mc^2? Would objects cease to feel a gravitational pull toward the earth of ~ 10 m/s^2? Think about what you're saying.

I have thought about what I am saying. Since when did I seem to say that an ID disallows all rules of science as we know them?!

No, if there was an ID then obviously he created them. I mean we are here right now so obviously they 'exist'. Whether he created them or doesn't exist to create them is what I am talking about.

Not that ID means 2+2 doesn't equal 4 and that f doesn't equal m times a.

Where did you think that I was saying that from? Ofcourse I am thinking about what I am saying. If I was saying that if there is an ID then there is no such thing as DNA. Then you could call the men in white jackets.

@click here,

click here wrote:

Oh yes I did just type that.
Did you not read what you quoted: "God if creator of all thus created all things and ways that we analyze physics and bio."

Specifically the part about creator of all the "ways that we analyze physics and bio"?

I stated my notion right there ^^^

You're derailing the thread with this irrelevant speculation. Stay on topic, my friend. I could toss a million hypotheticals your way too, here's a few: If there's really a carton of milk on the moon controlling all of us and had the ability to alter our natural laws, this would trump science! Or, how about this one, if aliens have been genetically manipulating us for millions of years and were simply using our feeble psyches for their own intentions, rendering all of our understanding of the known world false, this would trump science!

Can we please stop?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

"intelligence" cannot be observed or tested

That's your position? It can't be observed or tested. Period. I just want to clarify before I say more.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

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

No, you're not. You're drawing conclusions that don't come from the responses you've got to your post. If anyone tells you that science means you cannot believe in some higher power, they are speaking as anti-theists not as scientists. As Rasha pointed out, scientists, like any other people, can be as bigoted (and indeed as dogmatic) as anyone. Further, the sign that the Taj Mahal was designed by intelligence is its high level of order: it is probabilistically effectively impossible for the Taj Mahal to have formed by chance. The Universe, as a whole, is not so ordered. It is roughly homogenous and isotropic and, as such, disordered.

The question of intelligence as stated by yourself has been on the grounds of the universe meeting our needs. This is, imo, arrogant and short-sighted, especially since we know of the existence of processes by which organisms evolve to exploit the environment they are provided with, whether you choose to believe or not that the human race evolved by these processes. (This is a similar argument to the climate change deniers.)

The question of why the laws of nature are as they are is completely separate to the question of the origin of life. It may be so that an intelligent designer wrote the laws of nature, but as I said before, such conjectures have always been premature and, assuming no end to physical sciences, probably always will be.

The problem of fundamental 'why's is lack of sufficient data. We have only one universe to study. We cannot see other universes with different laws, different constants. We cannot see how life survives in such universes. We do not know if our universe is probable or not. As such imo the true fundamentals of nature are used in but cannot be explained by any human endeavour that relies on empiricism. Some people, like myself, can live with unknowns. Others cannot. The latter tend to come up with religious or unphysical ideas, such as an intelligent designer or Many Worlds Interpretation. ;o)

Alan McDougall wrote:

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

Einstein did not believe in an intelligent creator, but a mystical cosmos which could be called God. Faith and science are separate. Scientists tend not to be religious because what they know contradicts religious dogma, but it is feasible to hold onto some kind of faith and still be a great scientist, or even to hold a duality. What is not feasible, or right, is to posit faith as science.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

You're derailing the thread with this irrelevant speculation. Stay on topic, my friend. I could toss a million hypotheticals your way too, here's a few: If there's really a carton of milk on the moon controlling all of us and had the ability to alter our natural laws, this would trump science! Or, how about this one, if aliens have been genetically manipulating us for millions of years and were simply using our feeble psyches for their own intentions, rendering all of our understanding of the known world false, this would trump science!

Can we please stop?

Good call.

I think this whole arguement is being lost over semantics. We've completely lost the OP instead of talking about whether ID is true or not we end up talking about whether or not it is science (by def).

So we are arguing over the naming of something instead of the topic itself.

I myself would rather enjoy going back to the OP. Lets do it!

I'm interested about what resh has to say about intelligence.

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

That's your position? It can't be observed or tested. Period. I just want to clarify before I say more.

Intelligence is a subjective notion applied by humans in reference to the ability to learn, understand and reason. To imply that the world is "intelligently designed" implies a creator that is intelligent, otherwise there would be nothing intelligently designed. Not only are we applying a human foible to an objective world, but we are making the assumption on a notion of God (which is highly debatable obviously).

Even if the natural world does "add up" mathematically, it does not imply intelligence, and it most certainly has nothing to do with science. To assume science has dealing with our mystical notions is a great fallacy, and we should not stretch the boundaries of scientific method to meet our desired end. I could easily reference a system of disorder, while you could reference a system of intricate order, and neither of us could say the world is "stupid" or "intelligent", and neither could be proven, or disproven, with science.

This is yet another example of humans misconstruing and applying categorization where it needs not be.

@click here,

click here wrote:

Or not... because as I stated in my example that we were assuming it to be true. You don't call something that you know to be true abstract.

Why not? And 'we' are not assuming that at all, unless you are using the royal we, you know... the editorial. [Love the Dude.]

click here wrote:

I have thought about what I am saying. Since when did I seem to say that an ID disallows all rules of science as we know them?!

No, if there was an ID then obviously he created them. I mean we are here right now so obviously they 'exist'. Whether he created them or doesn't exist to create them is what I am talking about.

Not that ID means 2+2 doesn't equal 4 and that f doesn't equal m times a.

Where did you think that I was saying that from? Ofcourse I am thinking about what I am saying. If I was saying that if there is an ID then there is no such thing as DNA. Then you could call the men in white jackets.

Hey, I work with people in white jackets. Well, coats anyway.

Yes, apologies, I clearly misunderstood what you meant by 'trump'. It wasn't exactly precise language, was it? I get what you're saying: If all physical laws were known to be derived by an intelligent designer, then ID would provide the fundamental (but non-scientific) theory underlying all physical science. I wouldn't call this 'trumping' science; science would still be doing what it does well - nothing would change. In the same way, quantum theory explains the fundamental laws of chemistry, but it doesn't 'trump' chemistry - chemistry is still the best way to do chemistry.

Yes, ID would be to science what quantum theory is to chemistry: the fundamental explanation for. Sure thing. So what?

Of course, you have the same problem with creationist guff that you do with physical stuff like the big bang, fundamental constants and laws, etc: The 'why' simply extend into the non-physical. Unless we non-physically knew at least everything the designer knew. ID is not necessarily fundamental at all: like everything else in religious dogma, you are obliged to stop asking questions eventually.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

Why not? And 'we' are not assuming that at all, unless you are using the royal we, you know... the editorial. [Love the Dude.]

Why not? Because I stated in my example:

self quote wrote:

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)

I said 'if we assume it to be true' Sooo... In my example we are assuming it to be true.

Bones-O! wrote:

Hey, I work with people in white jackets. Well, coats anyway.

Yes, apologies, I clearly misunderstood what you meant by 'trump'. It wasn't exactly precise language, was it?

Hah no it isn't. But I was trying to think of a word that would mean that it comes before it precedes or something. Then Donald Trump popped into my head. So I had to use that.

Bones-O! wrote:

I get what you're saying: If all physical laws were known to be derived by an intelligent designer, then ID would provide the fundamental (but non-scientific) theory underlying all physical science. I wouldn't call this 'trumping' science; science would still be doing what it does well - nothing would change. In the same way, quantum theory explains the fundamental laws of chemistry, but it doesn't 'trump' chemistry - chemistry is still the best way to do chemistry.

Yes, ID would be to science what quantum theory is to chemistry: the fundamental explanation for. Sure thing. So what?

Of course, you have the same problem with creationist guff that you do with physical stuff like the big bang, fundamental constants and laws, etc: The 'why' simply extend into the non-physical. Unless we non-physically knew at least everything the designer knew. ID is not necessarily fundamental at all: like everything else in religious dogma, you are obliged to stop asking questions eventually.

Like I said to Z. We are getting lost in semantics. I almost was thinking we were heading towards proving ID wrong because it doesn't 'fit' under the definition of "science".

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Intelligence is a subjective notion ...

This is not an answer. "Yes" or "no" will do.

Again, you are attaching metaphysical concepts and rejecting my position because of the metaphysical concept that you attached. I can propose alternatives to "god" as an intelligent designer which make no appeal to a non-physical world.

At this point, my assumption would be you are saying "no". Then are measurements of cranial capacity in australopithecus nonsense, or the study of tools used by cro magnon, or ...

Further, I will ask you to give me a human word that isn't subjective.

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

This is not an answer. "Yes" or "no" will do.

Again, you are attaching metaphysical concepts and rejecting my position because of the metaphysical concept that you attached. I can propose alternatives to "god" as an intelligent designer which make no appeal to a non-physical world.

At this point, my assumption would be you are saying "no". Then are measurements of cranial capacity in australopithecus nonsense, or the study of tools used by cro magnon, or ...

Further, I will ask you to give me a human word that isn't subjective.

Perhaps my wording wasn't the most precise, but I hope you don't overlook the point here: Intelligent Design is beyond the realm of scientific method.

"Yes" or No" will not do, as the understanding and viewpoint each of us have will not be articulated well with a single word. These mystical notions cannot be observed or experimented, and therefore should not be considered science. This does not mean they are meaningless, or even that the claims are TRUE or UNTRUE, but rather that they are out of the scope of what humans generally refer to as science.

As for the studies of the brain, I believe this is a very sensitive issue. I'm a believer that intelligence is very relative to the individual. Perhaps someone is not an Einstein with mathematics, but can socialize, articulate thought in an impressive manner. In other words, I don't tend to presumptuously dismiss others because of the intelligence I don't perceive. To apply a word that I feel is already highly relative amongst human beings, to an objective world, just doesn't sit well with me. Are we to judge *how* intelligent or *how* stupid an objective world is? Or are we trying to judge *how* intelligent or *how* stupid the creator is?

I'm curious as to your stance. As of yet, I haven't really understood.

@click here,

click here wrote:

I said 'if we assume it to be true' Sooo... In my example we are assuming it to be true.

But why do you need to assume it to be true to name it? ID does not specify the intelligent designer. The actual nature of the designer is a separate issue: to that extent it is abstract. And it is theological, even if it is true.

click here wrote:

Hah no it isn't. But I was trying to think of a word that would mean that it comes before it precedes or something. Then Donald Trump popped into my head. So I had to use that.

Scary. :shocked:

click here wrote:

Like I said to Z. We are getting lost in semantics. I almost was thinking we were heading towards proving ID wrong because it doesn't 'fit' under the definition of "science".

Well, ID is posited as a science, so this isn't just about semantics. (Further, the only semantic issue with the word 'science' is how to use it generally in this thread, not [sorry to labour the point] how a theory will be ascertained to be scientific or not.) And the OPer agreed ages ago that ID isn't science. The reason this point has remained, as far as I'm concerned, is this:

[CENTER]If ID posits itself as science, and ID isn't science, reject ID.
[/CENTER]

This doesn't mean rejecting the theology of ID; the theology of ID is by and large contained within the theology of Christianity with respect to scientific discovery. ID offers nothing new in this regard. A random theist with some understanding of evolution will either deny evolution or intuitively explain it in the terms of ID, even if they've never heard of ID.

The raison d'etre of ID is to undermine science and brainwash children. Again, this says nothing of its theology or its metaphysic. But to endorse ID is to endorse it as a science, to endorse it as political foul play, to endorse it as a method of indoctrinating children.

Without these elements, the OP simply concerns theological explanations for as yet unexplained physical phenomena. Why align these conjectures with the underhand reintegration of church and state?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

As for the studies of the brain, I believe this is a very sensitive issue. I'm a believer that intelligence is very relative to the individual. Perhaps someone is not an Einstein with mathematics, but can socialize, articulate thought in an impressive manner. In other words, I don't tend to presumptuously dismiss others because of the intelligence I don't perceive. To apply a word that I feel is already highly relative amongst human beings to an objective world just doesn't sit well with me. Are we to judge *how* intelligent or *how* stupid an objective world is? Or are we trying to judge *how* intelligent or *how* stupid the creator is?

Not to team up, but I chime my support for this paragraph in particular. I'd even extend it: Our appraisals of intelligence in general are woefully misguided and prejudiced. Determining the relative (to ours) intelligence of the even most intelligent of non-human species (e.g. bottlenose dolphin) has proven to be beyond us so far.

A certain single-celled organism has an amazing ability to build a construct around itself from its environment in a way that borders on the craftsman-like. By the same criteria we judge ID from the universe, we have to grant that single-celled organism some kind of intelligence, some conscious purpose, and yet we know it has none. Why ascribe it, then, to something as, on the whole, disordered and chaotic as the universe?

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

This is not an answer. "Yes" or "no" will do

Most questions aren't as simple as yes/no. Why force him to take a nuanced issue and dichotomize it?

Zetherin wrote:

(Einstein's) interpretation was not the same kind of interpretation we see here. He followed a mathematically deduced method for reinterpreting the world. These notions are considered theories of science because of their mathematical coherency.

I agree, and of course you are right. My response is not to challenge what you wrote -- merely to ensure that we're distinguishing things that happen in science (reinterpretations of past data, non-hypothesis-driven research) from intelligent design ideas that could be described using similar terminology. I mean the problem with ID is not that it's not hypothesis-driven unto itself, or that it takes a revisionist look at science unto itself.

Its problem is that the conclusion is reached first and the evidence is twisted to conform to that conclusion. It's anti-science because ID proponents are not looking to find a better theory -- they're looking to supplant the theories that naturally suggest themselves. Scientists may love their theories, but press them hard enough and they will all admit that they are willing to be proven wrong. Do ID proponents have an idea that can be submitted to such a scenario?

By the way, can I say how much I hate abbreviating this ID? My subspecialty is commonly abbreviated ID. :listening:

Philosophy Forum

My Case for Intelligent design behind existence

Quick Links

My Account

able2know