[_ Old Earth _] Intelligent design is not intelligent

[reznwerks]

"But let's be clear: Intelligent-design theory is not science. The proof is in the pudding. Scientists, including scientists who are Christians, do not use IDT when they do science because it offers nothing in the way of testable hypotheses. Lee Anne Chaney, professor of biology at Whitworth College, a Christian institution, wrote in a 1995 article: "As a Christian, part of my belief system is that God is ultimately responsible. But as a biologist, I need to look at the evidence…. I don't think intelligent design is very helpful because it does not provide things that are refutable  there is no way in the world you can show it's not true. Drawing inferences about the deity does not seem to me to be the function of science because it's very subjective.""

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... t-opinions

 

[Drew]

While Intelligent Design is certainly not science, this does not mean it is not true. History cannot be falsified by experiment, but this does not mean that Hitler did not govern Germany in the 1930's (or whatever). I think we need to be clear that the fact that something is not subject to experimental falsification does not mean it is not factual.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

While Intelligent Design is certainly not science, this does not mean it is not true. History cannot be falsified by experiment, but this does not mean that Hitler did not govern Germany in the 1930's (or whatever). I think we need to be clear that the fact that something is not subject to experimental falsification does not mean it is not factual.

History can be falsified by evidence. And experiment is simply a method of evidence gathering.

Intelligent Design is saying that there is evidence to support itself where there is none. What is implied when people say "ID is not science" is "ID is creationism wearing a lab coat holding a test tube upsidedown and grinning like an idiot."

 

[peace4all]

Haha ^ great analogy.

 

[Featherbop]

I'm with Drew on this one. And it is true that everything is not true or false depending on whether it can be falsified. God's existence cannot be falsified, but that does indicate God is false, neither is it evidence against God's existence. My favorite color is green, neither can that be falsified or proven. If science proclaims that only things falsifiable are true, then so be it, but don't shove it down the throats of people that know otherwise.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

I'm with Drew on this one. And it is true that everything is not true or false depending on whether it can be falsified. God's existence cannot be falsified, but that does indicate God is false, neither is it evidence against God's existence. My favorite color is green, neither can that be falsified or proven. If science proclaims that only things falsifiable are true, then so be it, but don't shove it down the throats of people that know otherwise.

Darck Marck hasn't been doing his epistemology homework.

The idea of falsification isn't about proving whether or not something is true. It is for determining whether or not something is SCIENCE. Something cannot be scientific if it is immutable. If no possible evidence can show sigificant doubt for something taken to be true, then it cannot be shown to be true by actual evidence and thus not scientific.

 

[Featherbop]

I'm with Drew on this one. And it is true that everything is not true or false depending on whether it can be falsified. God's existence cannot be falsified, but that does indicate God is false, neither is it evidence against God's existence. My favorite color is green, neither can that be falsified or proven. If science proclaims that only things falsifiable are true, then so be it, but don't shove it down the throats of people that know otherwise.

Darck Marck hasn't been doing his epistemology homework.

The idea of falsification isn't about proving whether or not something is true. It is for determining whether or not something is SCIENCE. Something cannot be scientific if it is immutable. If no possible evidence can show sigificant doubt for something taken to be true, then it cannot be shown to be true by actual evidence and thus not scientific.

Maybe you don't get my point. I was saying that not all things are true, and science. Some are one, the other, or both. I'm simply saying that we cannot just refuse to accept something because it isn't science. And we most definately know that there are things that are not science in any way and are true. So, scientists should not regard something as false or implausible because it doesn't fit in to what they can study with science.

That is why ID should be taught as a plausible possibility in schools. To not do so would be like a science teacher proclaiming that favorite colors don't exist because it isn't "science".

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

[quote="Darck Marck":86755]I'm with Drew on this one. And it is true that everything is not true or false depending on whether it can be falsified. God's existence cannot be falsified, but that does indicate God is false, neither is it evidence against God's existence. My favorite color is green, neither can that be falsified or proven. If science proclaims that only things falsifiable are true, then so be it, but don't shove it down the throats of people that know otherwise.

Darck Marck hasn't been doing his epistemology homework.

The idea of falsification isn't about proving whether or not something is true. It is for determining whether or not something is SCIENCE. Something cannot be scientific if it is immutable. If no possible evidence can show sigificant doubt for something taken to be true, then it cannot be shown to be true by actual evidence and thus not scientific.

Maybe you don't get my point. I was saying that not all things are true, and science. Some are one, the other, or both. I'm simply saying that we cannot just refuse to accept something because it isn't science. And we most definately know that there are things that are not science in any way and are true. So, scientists should not regard something as false or implausible because it doesn't fit in to what they can study with science.
[/quote:86755]
First off, something which can be either true or false is factual, not scientific. Science attempts to find out what is true and how and why it is true.
Second, what I think you might be trying to say is that there are existing phenomena which are true and are unexplainable by science. This in itself is an impossible position to defend as there is no way of saying that science will not progress to the point of explaining somethings previously thought unexplainable.
Third, if it's trying to pass itself off as a science, which ID is attempting to do, and it cannot fulfill the definition of a science, which ID does not, then it can be rejected on the grounds of being unscientific. The reason that ID fails to be a science is that it posits something which is not directly testable and is only supported by subjective evidence.

That is why ID should be taught as a plausible possibility in schools. To not do so would be like a science teacher proclaiming that favorite colors don't exist because it isn't "science".

Wow, your analogy makes my brain hurt. ID cannot be taught in science classrooms, cannot be presented as science, because (and do please pay attention to the reason hereit is not a science.
Furthermore your analogy doesn't follow logically. Even under your logic the science teacher would be saying "Favorite colors exist but I can never know your favorite color."

 

[Drew]

Wow, the old head is spinning.

I think that most of us agree that ID is not science.

I also think that the mere fact that some might confuse ID with science does not, in and of itself, make ID false. This should be obvious and I suspect we will agree with this. To say otherwise, one would need to make the case that all "real" knowledge must be scientifically accessible. This might be an interesting project, but I suspect no one here has reached this conclusion.

I also disagree with the claim that ID is only supported by subjective evidence. In defence of my position, I can think of at least three categories of things that can exist:

1. Phenomena that are subject to scientific inquiry (e.g. the laws of physics, does smoking cause cancer)

2. Phenomena that are truly "subjective" such as the experience of my getting hit on the hand with a hammer. Although such an event can be partially characterized scientifically (e.g. measuring neuron firings in my "pain centre" etc), the subjective sensation associated with the event is, I maintain, forever beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. I do not have time to explain further. For the present, I will appeal to the intuition that the phenomenology of the event - the "what it is like to be hit on the hand with a hammer" - is simply not "public" information. We can all agree that when I am hit with the hammer, an increase in neuron activity is detected in location X of my brain. However the pain experience is mine and mine alone - the world is put together in such a way that it simply cannot be publically scrutinized. To me, this means it is not scientifically characterizable. Yet it is all too real. Of course this is subjective knowledge, so this excursion does not support my point.

3. Facts about the way things are that are beyond scientific inquiry and yet are not subjective. It seems to me that it could be the case that other universes exists that are completely decoupled from ours. By this I mean that the existence of such universes would have no observable consequences in our universe. However, they could still very well exist and in an objective sense - they could have the attribute of existence.

I think that item 3 strongly supports the notion that things can objectively exist which are not accessible to science.

ID needs to be defended using sound rational arguments and I certainly do not claim to have attempted this in this post. However, ID certainly cannot be discarded for reasons thus far enumerated in this thread. While it is not science, it is a candidate explanation for why "the world is the way that it is".

 

[ThinkerMan]

Drew:

Under ID, isn't exactly as rational that the Designer created the universe 5 minutes ago, as it is that he/she/it created it 6,000, 6 million or 14 billion years ago?

How does it provide a way to view existance, other than as an "out" for things as yet unexplained (or unexplainable)?

I agree completely with you that it isn't necessary a science, nor a way of viewing science, but a philosophical one.

 

[bibleberean]

Is it still April Fools day? :o

April first is the only true holiday for Atheists.

Any one who can look at this universe and not see intelligent design is not very intelligent.

Psalms 53:1 To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

:-D

 

[Drew]

Drew:

Under ID, isn't exactly as rational that the Designer created the universe 5 minutes ago, as it is that he/she/it created it 6,000, 6 million or 14 billion years ago?

How does it provide a way to view existance, other than as an "out" for things as yet unexplained (or unexplainable)?

"My" version of ID does not disagree with the "mainstream" view of "the facts" - the Universe came into being 14 billion years ago, life did indeed "evolve" from goop, etc.

I strongly suspect that we all have differing views about what claims ID is actually making. To be frank, I have given it my own definition - which is more or less as follows:

ID entails believing that there are sound "philosophical" non-scientific reasons to believe that the world "is the way that it is" by virtue of the actions of an intelligent agent. To me, this is entirely consistent with accepting the same set of facts about what has happened as accepted by most scientists. For me, one of the main issues is: why are the laws of nature the way that they are? Were they "set" by an intelligent agent?, Were they set "randomly"?, "Is their character fundamentally mysterious?, etc.

So I think my form of ID is a pretty "tame" form -it is NOT young earth creationism and it certainly would not give a 5 minute old Universe much respect. While it is of course possible that this is so, it seems to involve notions that God created a world with the "built-in" appearance of age. This is inconsistent with my beliefs about what God is like. So I reject this view. Remember, it is also possible that we are all in a "matrix" as per the movie - so anything is possible, maybe there is no "real" universe.

My form of ID has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of things that are as yet unexplained or even fundamentally unexplainable. To map those mysteries onto God requires further argument - it cannot simply be presumed.

ID is a massive topic with no pithy one-liner humdinger type arguments. However, for giggles, I will say one thing very briefly: Without the factual existence of zillions of other "uninteresting" Universes, the fact that our Universe had just the "right" settings to produce structure and life (when random selection would of these settings would arguably only very very rarely produce any structure at all), seems truly "miraculous". I could list a whole lot of disclaimers about what I have just said (and, yes, I am aware of the implications of the "anthropic" principle and how this might make something seem miraculous when it is not), but I will stop for now.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Thanks...I very much appreciate the clarification and your thoughts on the matter.

I don't find you theory wholly inconsistent at all. To the contrary, as I wiggled from agnotiscism to atheism I had very much the same thought.

As to why our universe is so "fine-tuned" I do not think it is untenable with natural explanations. However, I do generally think it is somewhat unnecessary, and you alluded to why with the anthrophic principle.

I think what you eluded is intellectually honest and not inconsistent with the evidence we have. I agree with the term miraculous, my position is simply that I don't have reason to subscribe a supernatural cause. Because that in and of itself would be "more miraculous" to have a supernatural power than the general miraculousness of the universe itself.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts on the issue. It is certainly a very interesting subject area, and a discussion much more based in reason, evidence and philosophy than YEC or the anti-evolution discussions that are rampant here.

Thanks....

 

[keebs]

Any one who can look at this universe and not see intelligent design is not very intelligent.

...and that's why the vast majority of people with Ph.D.s in Biology and Physics are atheist or agnostic. Gotcha.

 

[Featherbop]

First off, something which can be either true or false is factual, not scientific.

Science discovers the 'facts' of the physical universe. Although we assume 'facts' are 'true', 'facts' can change according to knowledge. 50,000 years from now, scientists may have radically different veiws of the 'facts' of many different things, according to how much knowledge they have.

Truth, on the other hand does not change. Also, the two can be confused.

So, science attempts the 'facts', and some of those 'facts' may be true, or not true. Science's understanding is based on it's knowledge. Truth is just that, regardless of knowledge. So it is for me and ID, I see it in some form as true, although I do not possess the facts that can qualify it as "science".

Science attempts to find out what is true and how and why it is true.

Science finds the "how". "Why" to a certain extent, I can agree, but I find some levels of "why" as beyond science, simply because science cannot 'work' on somethings.

Second, what I think you might be trying to say is that there are existing phenomena which are true and are unexplainable by science.

Right. Science only deals with the natural. It can't deal solely with the supernatural. So, say the phenomenon is completely supernatural, science cannot, nor ever will explain said phenomenon.

This in itself is an impossible position to defend as there is no way of saying that science will not progress to the point of explaining somethings previously thought unexplainable.

Oh, science has before, and will again, I am sure explain somethings thought unexplainable before. I am just saying there are somethings that it cannot.

Third, if it's trying to pass itself off as a science, which ID is attempting to do, and it cannot fulfill the definition of a science, which ID does not, then it can be rejected on the grounds of being unscientific.

Then if it is not working, ID proponents need to focus on the fact that ID is either truthful or plausible as something true,
nothing specific, mind you.
Then, say there is a science class deals with 'Earth's origins', then ID can be taught as a plausible idea, that people should be given the option to consider.

Wow, your analogy makes my brain hurt. ID cannot be taught in science classrooms, cannot be presented as science, because (and do please pay attention to the reason hereit is not a science.

As I said (above), ID could be given as an idea to consider based on it's plausibility and relevancy.

Furthermore your analogy doesn't follow logically. Even under your logic the science teacher would be saying "Favorite colors exist but I can never know your favorite color."

Yeah, it was just off the top of my head....

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

The fact of the matter is that ID isn't relevant as a scientific view at all, it doesn't have any bearing on any science. This is because it is a religious view, taken, in reactionary forms by creationists who see themselves losing the war of words.
Intelligent Design, and I name it specifically, basically says "all the stuff science says is true, except there's a god running everything and (in some forms) purposefully created humans" (the creationist adds here: "oh and the god's name is YHWH and everything in the bible is literally true")

As a philosophical and religious position, it's fine, I don't care about it in the least, live and let live. In the case of Christians entering science fields I urge if not a remission of faith, a lack of necessity for a god to have entered into it. For science to work, things can either happen on their own or some deity could have done them one slow tuesday afternoon right after the deity roundtable on symbolism. Science doesn't care whether or not some deity exists or is involved, it shouldn't have to matter for the universe to work. To say that there has to have been some invisible hand cranking out genotypes is scientifically dishonest and presents an unnecessary complication to the field. Let theologians argue about it, or silly nerds on some forum out in cyberspace.

As I said (above), ID could be given as an idea to consider based on it's plausibility and relevancy.

In case I haven't been clear I'm mostly responding to this statement. Science itself doesn't present any ideas about the existence of deities, so presenting one in the for category, in a science class, is unnecessary and unfair to the other equally relevant ideas of no deities and lots of deities coming out the ears.
Atheism, Monotheism, and Polytheism have NO place in science classes.

Debates about the specific doctrines of a religion not corresponding to reality are to be dealt with by people who are dealing with the issue of religion and can not rationally question science's factuality.

I apologize if this post is a bit longwinded, I think I got on a roll there.

 

[Drew]

Hello Syntax Vorlon and others:

I think that your dismissive view of Intelligent Design is not really fair. I certainly agree that there is a lot of "bad thinking" about this subject by some of its proponents. This is not news - there is a lot of bad thinking everywhere. Depending on the answers (that I do not claim to have) to some questions, ID could very well be a strong explanation for the way the world is and not merely an irrelevant religious dogma.

We know a lot about the world - the enterprise of science (along with the fact that nature "gives up" a lot of information) has provided us with an account of the evolution of the universe from almost the instant of the big bang. Let me be very generous and suppose that there are no "holes" in this account - a mechanistic, naturalistic explanation exists of how complex structures such as human beings have come to exist in the 5 billion or so years that the world has been around. Now I suspect that such an explanation does depend on certain elements of chance - the account is not one where it can shown that the evolution of humans in 5 billion years is inevitable or unavoidable. I am going to assume that certain things had to go "right" which could have gone wrong. Now let's suppose that the mechanisms involved and the limited timeline necessitate that we are really really really lucky to be here at this time - lots and lots of "breaks" went our way. To the extent that this is an accurate characterization of the naturalistic account of how we got here, ID begins to loom as a competing hypothesis (as I will attempt to explain shortly).

Please do not accuse me of being unaware of the anthropic effect - I am perfectly aware that only the "lucky" universes give rise to intelligent life (I am introducing the possibility of other universes as part of my explanation). A naturalist can plausibly claim there is no miracle - after all it is only in those universes where the dice rolls were favourable that intelligent life evolved to be confronted with the seeming miracle of their own existence.

But I think the apparent miracle might still pose a problem for the naturalist. In particular, I think that if the naturalist claims that only one universe exists (or has existed or will existed) then if the scientific account created by its inhabitants requires a lot (and I mean a lot) of "lucky breaks" (note that I am not for a moment accusing the naturalist of telling a tale that is inconsistent with the laws of nature, just one that requires some lucky events to have taken place), then things get interesting. Let's suppose I place a bunch of organic molecules in a pot on my kitchen table and go away for a month. If I come home to find a living dog in the pot (I am engaging in wild exaggeration intentionally). I could indeed formulate a naturalistic account of how the dog evolved so fast - all the evolutionary breaks went the right way for the dog to come to be. Now here is key point: unless I have some reason to suspect that there are zillions of other pots with no dogs in them, the appearance of my dog does seem suspiciously inconsistent with a naturalistic explanation. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of these other pots. If they are actual, if they are real, then mine is just a lucky pot. Otherwise, all bets are off (pun intended). Suppose Fred wins a lottery that 14 million other people participated in and lost - there is no strong reason for Fred to attribute his win to the actions of a benevolent god. However, if Fred is the only person who ever plays the lottery and keeps picking the right numbers week after week, the situation is different. Unless you have some kind of reason to believe that a "god" cannot exist, the presence of such a god is a legitmate "explanation" for Fred's good fortune. I am not saying that Fred's wins (or the presence of the dog in the pot or the fact that intelligent life is present in our Universe) cannot be explained naturalistically. I just think that the existence of a creative agent "loading the dice" is a perfectly legitimate hypothesis (and one is not superfluous as has been suggested). To me, it only makes sense to be "lucky" in a context where there are those who are unlucky. Luck is a phenomena of populations of things, and really only is a meaningful concept in certain contexts (I tend to think).

Note my assumptions: I admit that I have assumed that the normative naturalistic explanation requires a lot of luck. In my defence, I would refer to stuff I have read about how the initial expansion rate of the universe had to be "picked" with an accuracy of something like 1 in a zillion (or whatever).

I suspect that some opponents of ID may think that the existence of a creative intelligent "god" is too complex an assumption to make and that they reject this possiblity right off the top. I would remind them that they still have a mystery to deal with - why do the laws of nature exist, why does anything exist? We are all stuck with that target of explanation.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Drew:

I assume you are a Christian (If I remember correctly from some of your other posts).

Since you entertain ID as a possibility, how do you make the jump to specifically endorse a very specific deity with specific "meddling" properties. (Yahweh/Jesus)

By meddling, I mean a deity which consciously and specifically effects the world around us, with visions, prophets, actually taking physical form, giving us rules, miracles etc.

I appreciate your response.

Thanks...

 

[bibleberean]

NO one has ever observed life spring from non-life but "alleged" objective rationalists believe it took place in the far far distant past.

Sounds like faith to me... :D

 

[bibleberean]

Calvary Contender March 2005

CLASSROOM CRITICISM OF EVOLUTION PROHIBITED

A Chinese scholar observed, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.†Censorship of criticism invites fraud. Evolution has suffered more embarrassments than any other “scientific†theory. The Piltdown man was a lie taught to schoolchildren for decades, even featured in the John Scopes Monkey trial textbook. Only five years ago a dinosaur-bird fossil hoax was presented as true on the glossy pages of National Geographic.

If Darwinists want to teach that whales which are mammals evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open, we should surely be entitled to criticize that. Yet school libraries have refused to accept books critical of evolution, even when written by college professors. [Phyllis Schlafly, 1/3 Christian News]