[_ Old Earth _] Intelligent design is not intelligent

[SyntaxVorlon]

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

:roll:
Wow your sage wisdom truly knows no bounds. I'm sure you have plenty to say about these "alleged" electrons and "micro" transistors and quantum physics. And despite the fact that no one has ever actually SEEN one of these so called subatomic particles this bunch of "objective rationalists" somehow think that they can be make some sort of machine for storing, operating and handling data.

Sounds like groundless belief to me.

 

[Featherbop]

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.

I hope this isn't in response to me, because I thought I was clear enough that ID isn't(or doesn't have to be) science.

This is because it is a religious view, taken, in reactionary forms by creationists who see themselves losing the war of words.

So if one beleives God created the universe, that is only in reaction to atheists whom are supposedly winning a "war of words"? Riiiight.

"all the stuff science says is true, except there's a god running everything

"Except"? How does God's position as the Maker/Master of the universe invalidate anything science claims? Unless there is some refutation of God's existence given by science that you aren't telling me.

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")

This could be called the "religious part".

As a philosophical and religious position, it's fine, I don't care about it in the least, live and let live.

Good for you.

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.

Nice to see your honesty about atheistic bias in the feilds of science.

The bias to other observers is like this: Most scientists are big-headed elitists that think every theist is an moron, a "wall of ignorance"(your favorite expression V, ^_^)

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.

You claimed that God's existence and His creating the universe doesn't matter in order for science to work, and then you say it unnecesarily complicates the feild.....Is God a problem or not?

n case I haven't been clear I'm mostly responding to this statement.

You haven't been that clear...

Atheism, Monotheism, and Polytheism have NO place in science classes.

But agnostiscism is fine(to you)?

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

Downhill.

 

[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.

I hope this isn't in response to me, because I thought I was clear enough that ID isn't(or doesn't have to be) science.

You seem to have been implying that it could be used in the science classroom, which is what I was attacking. Furthermore I found your assertion that there is something within the universe that cannot(ever) be explained by science. Your evidence of such a thing existing was not forthcoming.

[quote:06d61]This is because it is a religious view, taken, in reactionary forms by creationists who see themselves losing the war of words.

So if one beleives God created the universe, that is only in reaction to atheists whom are supposedly winning a "war of words"? Riiiight.
[/quote:06d61]
No not atheists, evolution proponents who were able in the 20th century, to take creationism off of curricula and bring evolution to the classroom. Creationism was eventually seen as a backward, unscientific explanation of the universe and couldn't defend its place in education. This is what I mean by losses in the "war of words."

Also, for clarification, and I have made it clear on this board in the past, when I speak of creationists, I generally mean people who want Genesis taught in public schoolrooms as part of the curriculum.

[quote:06d61]"all the stuff science says is true, except there's a god running everything

"Except"? How does God's position as the Maker/Master of the universe invalidate anything science claims? Unless there is some refutation of God's existence given by science that you aren't telling me.
[/quote:06d61]
What I'm saying here is that ID proponents are taking science and religionizing it to fit with their worldview when this is unnecessary and detrimental to the unbiased science education of the American public.

[quote:06d61]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")

This could be called the "religious part".
[/quote:06d61]
belief in any god = religion

The first part I mentioned adds to science a deity running the universe, thus it requires the belief in such a deity in order to be taken as a position, unless someone wishes to believe that while the universe itself doesn't exist, if it did it would have a deity running things.

[quote:06d61]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.

Nice to see your honesty about atheistic bias in the feilds of science.

The bias to other observers is like this: Most scientists are big-headed elitists that think every theist is an moron, a "wall of ignorance"(your favorite expression V, ^_^)
[/quote:06d61]
I wasn't saying that there WAS an atheistic bias in the sciences, plenty of scientists are christians, plenty of evolutionary biologists, big bang theorists, abiogenesis chemists, etc. are christians. But in order to do good science, to see only what is shown by the evidence and not be swayed by personal religious bias. Furthermore, I object to the polarization of science as biased either way, it is optimally secular.

If someone isn't willing to have their opinion changed in any way by concrete evidence that the universe is billions of years old, or some other scientifically established fact that doesn't coincide with their personal worldview, then they are a wall of ignorance, I don't restrict this to theists. Your assumption that scientists have big egos that manifest themselves in this way is baseless, our egos manifest themselves more in the bedroom.(RAR)
Oh and what's so bad about being the best?

[quote:06d61]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.

You claimed that God's existence and His creating the universe doesn't matter in order for science to work, and then you say it unnecesarily complicates the feild.....Is God a problem or not?
[/quote:06d61]
Placing any diety into a scientific explaination complicates things unnecessarily. As a belief it doesn't matter, anyone has the freedom to believe anything they want. However to present such unestablished beliefs as science is intellectually dishonest.

[quote:06d61]n case I haven't been clear I'm mostly responding to this statement.

You haven't been that clear...
[/quote:06d61]
Pardon me, you should have read the entire post before you started responding then, shouldn't you have?

<snip: unnecessary nitpic>
[quote:06d61]<snip: ad homenim>

[/quote:06d61]

 

[Featherbop]

You seem to have been implying that it could be used in the science classroom, which is what I was attacking.

Allow me to give a scenario of how I think ID could be appropriately used in a classroom:

Proffesor: "Scientists have found a great deal of evidence that the universe is billions of years old, and came to exist because of what we call the "Big Bang". However, we know nothing of how this "bang" started, or what caused it, we just think it happened. So, for this and many other reasons, most people find reason to think that there is a "beginner", a Creator, if you will. This is a relevant topic that deserves consideration, everyone must make up his own mind based on what reasons and evidences he has."

Just a general example.

Furthermore I found your assertion that there is something within the universe that cannot(ever) be explained by science.

I guess I didn't hide it well enough.

Your evidence of such a thing existing was not forthcoming.

Kind of difficult to do right now. We have gotten through so little of the universe.....

But I think there is plenty right on earth.

No not atheists, evolution proponents who were able in the 20th century, to take creationism off of curricula and bring evolution to the classroom.

If these people were theistic, and not atheistic, I don't see why they did that.

Creationism was eventually seen as a backward, unscientific explanation of the universe and couldn't defend its place in education. This is what I mean by losses in the "war of words."

I do agree that Creationism is not science(science can't explain, confirm or disprove it). But Creationism is in education, and many people find reason to beleive it. I have even seen it in public schools, and of course, private schools. If you describe Creationism as having lost, I can only assume you must either be ignorant of the reality, or trying to make the situation look the way you desire it to be.

Also, for clarification, and I have made it clear on this board in the past, when I speak of creationists, I generally mean people who want Genesis taught in public schoolrooms as part of the curriculum.

It would be better to clarify this at the beggining, V.

What I'm saying here is that ID proponents are taking science and religionizing it to fit with their worldview

This is your perspective. Let us not argue such opinions. It won't be productive at all.

when this is unnecessary and detrimental to the unbiased science education of the American public.

Detrimental is a joke. Unnecessary is at a personal discression level. Most people want God. Only a few secualrists/Atheists want God to leave schools and science.

belief in any god = religion

a "god" can be anything greatly revered, worshipped, or given the highest place in one's life. I could effortlessly make the argument that you have a religion because you are atheist/secularist/humanist (add anything else.)

The first part I mentioned adds to science a deity running the universe, thus it requires the belief in such a deity in order to be taken as a position, unless someone wishes to believe that while the universe itself doesn't exist, if it did it would have a deity running things.

When you say "running", what do you mean?

Anyway, there is no problem. Reality is reality. Regardless of what one believes, reality takes first place. If someone beleives in God, then they probably have reason to do so. Science still works the way it does. So, no problem.

I wasn't saying that there WAS an atheistic bias in the sciences, plenty of scientists are christians, plenty of evolutionary biologists, big bang theorists, abiogenesis chemists, etc. are christians.

"Plenty" doesn't tell me anything. Numbers, please. And your definition of "Christian".

Furthermore, I object to the polarization of science as biased either way, it is optimally secular.

Every human is biased in some way, and it cannot be avoided. You can claim you are against that however much you care to, but the bias remains. Plus you must assume that every theist has absolutely no reason what so ever to beleive what they do, save for "religious bias", while atheists are not biased and are "reasonable".

Or so my perception of you tells me.

If someone isn't willing to have their opinion changed in any way by concrete evidence that the universe is billions of years old, or some other scientifically established fact that doesn't coincide with their personal worldview, then they are a wall of ignorance, I don't restrict this to theists.

Right. If someone does not agree with you, they are deemed "wall of ignorance". You act as if one does not believe what you do, they are irrationable, and the world is going to be destroyed because of it. I exxagerate of course, but you do seem wacko.

Your assumption that scientists have big egos that manifest themselves in this way is baseless, our egos manifest themselves more in the bedroom.(RAR)

Ha. Ha.

Oh and what's so bad about being the best?

Nothing. God is doing quite fine last I heard.

Pardon me, you should have read the entire post before you started responding then, shouldn't you have?

I did. Just wanted to point out that it is better to clarify at the beggining.

 

[Barbarian]

Even being a Christian, I can see why establishment of religion in public schools is a bad idea.

When it comes to instruction, science belongs in science class. Religion is the province of parents and church.

 

[Drew]

It is simply not true that Intelligent Design is a "religious" doctrine through and through. The form that I am open to is certainly not - it is more of a "philosophical" doctrine. Given the way the world is, it is an entirely plausible (an hypothesis H is plausible to the degree that there is a lack of evidence against H) that an intelligent agent of some kind created the universe. Christianity or Islam and some other "religions" embrace such a view. So what? Why does it violate ideas about separation of church and state to look at the question of ID in a classroom, especially since it can be addressed rationally in a non-dogmatic manner (as I, even though a total amateur, believe I have demonstrated in some earlier posts in this thread).

I really do understand the wisdom of separating church and state. But the line is not always clear. Religious doctrine embraces a number of important questions about our world - including how we got here. The mere fact that certain religions suggest answers to these questions should not ban consideration of the questions from secular institutions like a school.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

It is simply not true that Intelligent Design is a "religious" doctrine through and through. The form that I am open to is certainly not - it is more of a "philosophical" doctrine. Given the way the world is, it is an entirely plausible (an hypothesis H is plausible to the degree that there is a lack of evidence against H) that an intelligent agent of some kind created the universe. Christianity or Islam and some other "religions" embrace such a view. So what? Why does it violate ideas about separation of church and state to look at the question of ID in a classroom, especially since it can be addressed rationally in a non-dogmatic manner (as I, even though a total amateur, believe I have demonstrated in some earlier posts in this thread).

I really do understand the wisdom of separating church and state. But the line is not always clear. Religious doctrine embraces a number of important questions about our world - including how we got here. The mere fact that certain religions suggest answers to these questions should not ban consideration of the questions from secular institutions like a school.

My GF suggests that if some other line of philosophy not related to religion came up with answers similar to those stated above, then they could be said to be partially divorced from religious doctrine. Otherwise there is no reason to assume that the idea that "there must be some deity that created/runs the universe" is anything but a religious doctrine.(this is of course paraphrased)

 

[Drew]

Hello SV:

The truthfulness or plausiblity of an idea should not be judged on the context from which it emerges but rather by the content of the idea itself.

I have put forth some thoughts earlier in this thread about how it could be that ID can be argued in non-religious terms. What do you think about what I said?

I still do not see why we cannot have a secular debate (e.g. in schools) about the proposition that an intelligent agent created the world. If you claim that the idea is explanatorily superfluous - that it adds nothing to a substantial explanation of the way the world is, you need to address what I have said in my earlier posts (e.g. the stuff about "luck", "multiple universes", and "fine tuning").

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Drew you're positing that something is true without showing any evidence to support its truthfulness. You say that ID may not be scientific but that doesn't keep it from being true, but it means that it is impossible to tell whether or not it is true or to even show objective evidence for it being true, regardless of whether or not it is science. It can be a position that someone takes but to present it as truth is fallacious and misleading.

Furthermore, and this isn't directed at Drew specifically, for a science professor to offer a view point that doesn't have anything to do with science and the truth of which cannot be supported, as part of the curriculum would be misleading, scientifically dishonest, and educationally dangerous.
Now Drew, to what you have said:

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).

Incorrect, the universe is 13.7 billion years old and is big, really amazingly big.
Warning, large picture
That is a picture of 10000 galaxies, with billions of stars each. That picture was taken from a piece of the sky so small that it's equivalent to looking through an 8 ft drinking straw at a patch of sky.

From this we can take it that while we may be lucky, there was an equal chance amongst the billions of stars in the galaxy and the billions of galaxies in the universe for the right conditions for life to form. Thus it's not luck it's probability.

You say that there is an incredible amount of luck for us to exist, but if this is true, then all other states that the universe could exist in would be equally lucky to exist. It doesn't mean that there HAS to be a creator, nothing has necessitated it.

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.

The reason we can't assume that a creative deity exists is because it requires an entire realm of explanation that we can't even begin to make factual statements about because its existence cannot be founded. It's not simply that it makes things too complex, it's that it would make science impossible.

 

[bibleberean]

Evolutionists post that life sprang from non life without any evidence at all.

Sort of like "the pot calling the kettle...black"

Too amusing... :D

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Evolutionists post that life sprang from non life without any evidence at all.

Sort of like "the pot calling the kettle...black"

Too amusing... :D

Evolution proponents are required to say nothing of the sort.

It's only when people are abiogenesis proponents that they are actually saying that life arose from non living organic matter.
Furthermore there is significant evidence supporting the chemical origin of life.

 

[bibleberean]

Evolutionists post that life sprang from non life without any evidence at all.

Sort of like "the pot calling the kettle...black"

Too amusing... :D

Evolution proponents are required to say nothing of the sort.

It's only when people are abiogenesis proponents that they are actually saying that life arose from non living organic matter.
Furthermore there is significant evidence supporting the chemical origin of life.

I just can't buy that horse manure... ;-)

"There is significant evidence supporting the chemical origin of life" and yet you say that evolution proponents are required to say nothing of the sort.

What a crock... :D

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Evolutionists post that life sprang from non life without any evidence at all.

Sort of like "the pot calling the kettle...black"

Too amusing... :D

Evolution proponents are required to say nothing of the sort.

It's only when people are abiogenesis proponents that they are actually saying that life arose from non living organic matter.
Furthermore there is significant evidence supporting the chemical origin of life.

I just can't buy that horse manure... ;-)

"There is significant evidence supporting the chemical origin of life" and yet you say that evolution proponents are required to say nothing of the sort.

What a crock... :D

What's so hard to understand?
Evolution is not the same thing as abiogenesis, they are fundamentally different things.
Someone can believe in one and not believe in the other.

 

[Sophistress]

Evolutionists post that life sprang from non life without any evidence at all.

Sort of like "the pot calling the kettle...black"

Too amusing... :D

Evolution proponents are required to say nothing of the sort.

It's only when people are abiogenesis proponents that they are actually saying that life arose from non living organic matter.
Furthermore there is significant evidence supporting the chemical origin of life.

I just can't buy that horse manure...

"There is significant evidence supporting the chemical origin of life" and yet you say that evolution proponents are required to say nothing of the sort.

What a crock... :D

What, no scripture? :o

 

[DivineNames]

Drew you're positing that something is true without showing any evidence to support its truthfulness. You say that ID may not be scientific but that doesn't keep it from being true, but it means that it is impossible to tell whether or not it is true or to even show objective evidence for it being true, regardless of whether or not it is science. It can be a position that someone takes but to present it as truth is fallacious and misleading.

You seem to be suggesting that a "philosophical" argument shouldn't be taken at all seriously, that only empirical evidence should be regarded as of worth. If this is an accurate portrayal, I would ask you what direct testable evidence do you have for the truth of this outlook?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Drew you're positing that something is true without showing any evidence to support its truthfulness. You say that ID may not be scientific but that doesn't keep it from being true, but it means that it is impossible to tell whether or not it is true or to even show objective evidence for it being true, regardless of whether or not it is science. It can be a position that someone takes but to present it as truth is fallacious and misleading.

You seem to be suggesting that a "philosophical" argument shouldn't be taken at all seriously, that only empirical evidence should be regarded as of worth. If this is an accurate portrayal, I would ask you what direct testable evidence do you have for the truth of this outlook?

For one thing, the burden of proof is on the one who posits something. Someone who is positing that this philosophy is true, or indeed is valid, must post some form of proof for it. As no such proof was posted, no real logic has been shown to underly this position. Indeed this position contains no method by which truth could be assertained.

 

[Drew]

Furthermore, and this isn't directed at Drew specifically, for a science professor to offer a view point that doesn't have anything to do with science and the truth of which cannot be supported, as part of the curriculum would be misleading, scientifically dishonest, and educationally dangerous.

I have clearly and repeatedly stated that the putative truth of ID cannot be established through science. So what? The fact that its truth cannot be established empirically does not mean it is beyond the realm of human inquiry. It seems clear to me that what I will call "philosophical" discussions and inquiry do belong in the classroom. Consider the renowned philosopher Kant. He argued persuasively for the existence of what he called "synthetic a priori" truths. He asserts that these are truths whose veracity can be established without empirical inquiry - without "science". Now I am not prepared to defend Kant. However, he is still taught in university philosophy courses. It seems unlikely that one day all the philosophy faculty members are going to slap their foreheads and exclaim: "We can't teach this stuff to students - its truth cannot be supported!"

Now Drew, to what you have said:

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).

Incorrect, the universe is 13.7 billion years old and is big, really amazingly big.
Warning, large picture
That is a picture of 10000 galaxies, with billions of stars each. That picture was taken from a piece of the sky so small that it's equivalent to looking through an 8 ft drinking straw at a patch of sky.

From this we can take it that while we may be lucky, there was an equal chance amongst the billions of stars in the galaxy and the billions of galaxies in the universe for the right conditions for life to form. Thus it's not luck it's probability.

You say that there is an incredible amount of luck for us to exist, but if this is true, then all other states that the universe could exist in would be equally lucky to exist. It doesn't mean that there HAS to be a creator, nothing has necessitated it.

Again, you do not seem to be responding to what I have actually written. I have stated clearly in earlier posts that the mere existence of any structure at all in our Universe required that certain very special (special in the sense of having to be "just so") conditions had to exist. My argument has never had anything of the form "we are lucky" in our particular solar system - I have never ignored the "billions of other galaxies" because my whole argument was not about being "lucky" specifically here on earth. By the way, I have never stated there "has" to be a creator.

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.

The reason we can't assume that a creative deity exists is because it requires an entire realm of explanation that we can't even begin to make factual statements about because its existence cannot be founded. It's not simply that it makes things too complex, it's that it would make science impossible.

The statement that a creative deity makes science impossible is simply untrue. God could have set the initial conditions (designed them, if you will) and then walked away from "meddling" with the laws of nature. This is one form of ID - the one I am sympathtic to. Such a universe would indeed be subject to scientific investigation. It just so happens that such laws were set by God. How, exactly, would science be made impossible by such a situation?

 

[Barbarian]

That is deism, not ID.

The idea that God has to tinker with the universe from time to time to get it to work is ID.

Theistic evolution is the belief that God created the universe, set all the fundamental laws to make it work as He intended, and continues to be intimately involved in the universe.

 

[Drew]

That is deism, not ID.

The idea that God has to tinker with the universe from time to time to get it to work is ID.

Theistic evolution is the belief that God created the universe, set all the fundamental laws to make it work as He intended, and continues to be intimately involved in the universe.

OK. I hear what you are saying. However, the common sense connotation of phrase "Intelligent Design" does not seem inconsistent with the idea that the Universe was designed at the very beginning and then "set in motion". So, frankly, I am surprised at your claim that the term ID cannot be used to describe such a state of affairs. If the universe was designed, it was designed, whether or not "updates" to that design are taking place.

Anyhoo.....,, while having a common definition of words is important, the real interesting and valuable stuff is the case for a given position. When you say that God "tinkers with the universe from time to time", I am not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the occasional miracle, where the "laws" of physics are sometimes violated? Or are you talking about a situation where God "tweaks" or alters the laws from time to time and then those changes "stick"?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Drew, from my understanding ID, as it is argued for by people who want it in the science classroom, is put forth as there being some deity or intelligent being out there that says "the nose goes here, the thumb there" etc. Theistic evolution is more: "And thus spake god the Hubble parameter and into motion set its variation, and thus space is big...really unimaginablly big..."