FRIHOST • FORUMS • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Intelligent Design - Science or Religion?

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion
 


Bikerman
The idea of Intelligent Design has been raised many times in this forum (and others) as a potential explanation of the universe.* In order to address this issue directly I have started this thread on ID specifically, rather than deal with it in various diverse threads. I have started the thread in this forum rather than the science forum because I believe that this is the appropriate place for such a discussion.
I would like to concentrate on two particular areas:
1) Is Intelligent Design (ID) scientific? Is it a valid scientific hypothesis and is it supported by any evidence? What is the definition of ID and how can it be tested?
2) Is ID distinct from Creationism? Is ID functionally different from creationism? Are the supporters of ID different and distinct from the supporters of creationism?

A useful starting point is probably to offer a definition of ID.

wiki has the following:
Quote:
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Merriam-Webster offers:
Quote:
the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

Obviously there may be other definitions and supporters of ID are welcome to offer them, but I think that these two offer a fair definition of the idea. I'll be happy to consider alternatives.

I will pause at this point to offer the opportunity for comment on the areas of discussion and the definitions I have suggested, before I move on (in light of any responses) to consider the two questions I posed about ID.


* I will declare my own interest explicitly. I believe that ID is a religous belief based on creationism and is not in any way scientific. I remain to be convinced however.
Indi
i think the first thing needed to kick off any discussion here is to make sure that the definition of ID is clear and universally understood - and hopefully agreed to.

The "scientific theory" of Intelligent Design (ID) is that there are certain features and aspects of the natural world that cannot be prescribed to successive refinement. It particularly focuses on biological systems, but it can, and has, been applied to other parts of nature. If you want to get really technical and pedantic, the "Theory of Intelligent Design" is a biological theory... but it represents a "Philosophy of Intelligent Design" that could be applied to several places in science. (This is not really unique to ID... the theory of evolution was originally a biological theory, but the underlying philosophy has been applied to a number of fields, from social dynamics to culture (e.g., memetics), and there is current state-of-the-art work being done that applies evolution's philosophy to cosmology.)

Focusing on the actual "theory" of ID - the biological one - ID posits the claim that there are certain parts of biological systems that are irreducibly complex. In plain English, the argument is that certain features in biological systems make sense only when they are complete. The classic example, dating all the way back to Paley's 1802 work Natural Theology, is the eye. According to the argument, there is no way you can move through a series of evolutionary selected stages that eventually leads to the eye... or as the popular refrain goes, "half an eye does no good". Modern ID proponents typically don't mention the eye, because its evolutionary stages are plenty well understood by this point, and prefer more esoteric examples like the bacterial flagellum (Google it, if you care). The upshot is that in order for these structures to exist, since they (allegedly) cannot have evolved in stages, they must have emerged pretty much whole and working. The only way to explain that (allegedly), is that something that was aware of what the final, working structure would be like (how it would work, and what problems it would solve) must have planned the structure, and implemented it wholesale.

ID proponents quite carefully avoid naming the designer... except amongst themselves, when they openly say it's God. ID proponents also carefully dance around questions about the age of the Earth, allowing them to claim ID as an acceptable theory for both young-Earth and old-Earth creationists.

The most important thing to understand, though, is that ID is not guided evolution. Guided evolution is the idea that evolution did happen as science knows it... but that it was guided by something (they usually mean God, of course, and when they explicitly name God, it's called theistic evolution). ID does allow for some evolution (although, it doesn't require it). But ultimately, ID says some things did not evolve, they were designed and created by "something" (God).

(Evidence: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." Of Pandas and People, Davis & Kenyon (1993). Of Pandas and People was the first ID textbook intended to introduce ID to high school students. It is currently being revised and renamed to The Design of Life.)

Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a religious interpretation of a scientific theory (evolution). It is endorsed by most major Christian churches.

And, as can be seen from the definition above, ID is creationism. Just watered down a bit from hard creationism (it allows for some evolution - usually ID proponents will allow what they call "microevolution" but not "macroevolution"), and not specifically naming God as the designer/creator. Ironically, creation science is more scientific than ID, because at least creation science clearly describes the mechanism of the alleged designing and creation of irreducibly complex structures. By dancing around the topic to avoid being caught out as a religious belief, ID lacks even that credibility.
HereticMonkey
Except for some areas, I agree with the above...

Indi wrote:

ID proponents quite carefully avoid naming the designer... except amongst themselves, when they openly say it's God. ID proponents also carefully dance around questions about the age of the Earth, allowing them to claim ID as an acceptable theory for both young-Earth and old-Earth creationists.

Not everyone that believes in some form of ID necessarily believes that it was God, assuming that you are referring to the biblical God. Keep in mind that it also incorporates pagan and Deist thought, as well as some animism and Buddhsim. A large number of scientists refer to a generic "superior intelligence". It's easy to say that God was involved, but not everyone believes that it was or that He's necessarily still part of the equation (or, that if He is, He's gotten more subtler).

Keep in mind that I'm differentiating it from the Gaia Hypothesis, where the planet itself is seen as the force guiding evolution.

Quote:
The most important thing to understand, though, is that ID is not guided evolution. Guided evolution is the idea that evolution did happen as science knows it... but that it was guided by something (they usually mean God, of course, and when they explicitly name God, it's called theistic evolution). ID does allow for some evolution (although, it doesn't require it). But ultimately, ID says some things did not evolve, they were designed and created by "something" (God).

The problem is that most people who believe in ID don't go with this variant; that is, they believe that some force nudged evolution at certain points. That is, rather than forcing creatures to evolve in leaps, it was prodded every into that form, somewhat like dog-breeding.

Quote:
(Evidence: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

This is sort of where there is an issue; not everyone that goes in for ID necessarily believes it to this degree. That is, we can see wings developing from hands, and feathers from scales; but, we see it as an evolution caused by an outside force, and not necessarily happening by itself.

The main problem is that a lot of those that believe in some form of ID get there not necessarily because of a religious background, but because of their own scientific investigations. It's like looking at a garden; even though it could have arisen completely randomly, it feels sorta weird saying that something that well cultured could have arisen randomly.

And how would an eye have evolved from a simple organ that could detect light?

HM
Bikerman
I'll come back to the meat of the debate later but let's just clear up that last point about the eye. It has been dealt with ad-nauseum by evolutionary scientists because (funnily enough) this is the one example that creationists/ID supporters have used more than any other, based largely on a mistrepresentation of what Darwin said about the eye.
Here is a fairly standard and straightforward explanation of how it might have evolved:
Quote:
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

source; http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
HalfBloodPrince
But, isn't it so strange how our eyes are so well suited for us without ID? When in dark, they focus and soon enough we can see all-right, we split and view colors so correctly, etc...

Sorry for the overly blunt message, need to run...
Bikerman
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
But, isn't it so strange how our eyes are so well suited for us without ID? When in dark, they focus and soon enough we can see all-right, we split and view colors so correctly, etc
Why, then, design an eye that cannot see in the dark? Why not design infra-red capability into the eye? Why design the eye in such a way that cataracts are likely to form? Why design the eye with blood vessels so close to the surface which leads to infection and possible leakage? In short, if you are going to design an eye why not design a really good one?
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
The problem is that most people who believe in ID don't go with this variant; that is, they believe that some force nudged evolution at certain points. That is, rather than forcing creatures to evolve in leaps, it was prodded every into that form, somewhat like dog-breeding.
This is simply another form of guided evolution. This is also, in my opinion, a misrepresentation of ID. Most proponents of ID, in the public sphere at least, are associated with the Discovery Institute. That is not to say that there may not be proponents of ID who have a different view - you clearly seem to be one such example - but the modern formulation of ID originates with the Discovery Institute and they are the most widely known advocates of ID, which they developed as part of their 'Wedge Strategy'.
The Discovery Institude version of ID does not accept Guided Evolution and does believe in a God - the Christian God of the bible.
If you are saying that the majority of ID supporters have a different version of ID then I'd like to see the evidence, since all you are providing at the moment is your own personal interpretation of ID. Who exactly are you speaking for when you say 'most people who believe in ID'?
liljp617
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
But, isn't it so strange how our eyes are so well suited for us without ID? When in dark, they focus and soon enough we can see all-right, we split and view colors so correctly, etc...

Sorry for the overly blunt message, need to run...

If we were "designed," what's the point in giving us physical flaws? Why would we have an appendix if we have absolutely no use for it? It's actually believed that the appendix was part of the digestion system when humans were more gatherers and less hunters, because our digestion system needed ways to digest plants at a faster/more efficient pace. Now that we're not the plant eaters we used to be, the appendix is no longer in use. On the topic of the eye, why "design" something and not make it as near to perfect as possible? There are obvious flaws in this "design" you all speak of, and it makes no sense what so ever that a designer would purposely place flaws in its design.
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
I'll come back to the meat of the debate later but let's just clear up that last point about the eye. It has been dealt with ad-nauseum by evolutionary scientists because (funnily enough) this is the one example that creationists/ID supporters have used more than any other, based largely on a mistrepresentation of what Darwin said about the eye.
Here is a fairly standard and straightforward explanation of how it might have evolved:
Quote:
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

source; http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Just to finally put this tired old eye thing to rest for good (for the last time, hopefully), i'm going to go a step beyond what Bikerman has provided. He has given a modernized version of the solution Darwin gave back in 1859.

(For those who don't know, what basically happened is in the original book describing his theory, in chapter 6 "Difficulties on Theory", in a section called "Organs of extreme perfection and complication", Darwin wrote: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Creationists have jumped on that sentence and have repeated it ad nauseum. What they don't repeat is the very next sentence: "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." Darwin then goes on to hypothesize pretty much the gist of what Bikerman has described.)

You may reasonably object to both Darwin and Bikerman, saying, "But you don't know that it's possible, you're only speculating on what might be possible." True, i suppose, but hardly damning. But even if that's true, it's not really a problem... because modern science does know.

We have identified the genes responsible for the eye (PAX6, for starters). We know where they came from and why. We can even cause eyes to grow on your legs (it's been done with flies). In fact, one of the things we have found is an indication of why we no longer ascribe to Darwin's theory (something that creationists can't seem to get through their heads... no one's a Darwinist anymore, that theory has been superseded - modern evolutionary theory is often called neo-Darwinist). Some of the genes responsible for the eye's structures are also genes for proteins that combat mutagens. Clearly those genes were useful to early organisms, so they got stored and passed down... then much later re-expressed as rudimentary eyes (which were obviously beneficial). This is quite common; genes get reused all the time, as well as entire structures (feathers, while obviously beneficial for flight, very likely evolved long before flight for the sake of warmth - something that shouldn't seem surprising given that we still have flightless, feathered creatures today - feathers were co-opted and reused by nature to allow for flying).

Seriously, give it up. The eye is a closed issue. Even the more educated creationists (Dembski, Behe) have abandoned it in favour of bacterial flagellum, the clotting response, and the like. (And those will shortly be hammered down by science, too, from the looks of it.)

Bikerman wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
The problem is that most people who believe in ID don't go with this variant; that is, they believe that some force nudged evolution at certain points. That is, rather than forcing creatures to evolve in leaps, it was prodded every into that form, somewhat like dog-breeding.
This is simply another form of guided evolution. This is also, in my opinion, a misrepresentation of ID. Most proponents of ID, in the public sphere at least, are associated with the Discovery Institute. That is not to say that there may not be proponents of ID who have a different view - you clearly seem to be one such example - but the modern formulation of ID originates with the Discovery Institute and they are the most widely known advocates of ID, which they developed as part of their 'Wedge Strategy'.
The Discovery Institude version of ID does not accept Guided Evolution and does believe in a God - the Christian God of the bible.
If you are saying that the majority of ID supporters have a different version of ID then I'd like to see the evidence, since all you are providing at the moment is your own personal interpretation of ID. Who exactly are you speaking for when you say 'most people who believe in ID'?

Agree... but i'm going to go a step further.

i would like to point out that, thus far, there have been four definitions of ID offered. Bikerman offered two, i offered one, and HereticMonkey offered one. Let's review. Of Bikerman's two definitions:
  1. One is from the dictionary, which is notoriously unreliable for technical terms.
  2. The other is from Wikipedia, which i - personally - would consider acceptable (with qualification), but which HereticMonkey has, on several occasions, denounced as entirely unreliable.
That leaves my definition and HereticMonkey's.

i'd also like to point out that i have provided a source for my definition, and it is the first (and currently only) textbook on ID. i'd further like to point out that i can provide supporting quotes from other ID books. By contrast, HereticMonkey has provided no sources, and only vague promises that this is what "most" ID proponents believe.

There are three possibilities with respect to creationism and evolution:
  1. Modern biological life is the result of a progressive evolution from simple forms, according to simple rules (for example, natural selection). This is evolutionary theory. Theists who subscribe to evolutionary theory often say that their god planned for evolution and laid out the rules, but then stepped back and let it happen "naturally". This is guided or theistic evolution, which is the position held by most theist scientists, and the official positions of most of the larger denominations and sects.
  2. Modern biological life was created pretty much as it is, in its current form. Some minor, mostly cosmetic, change is allowed, but by and large a dog today is indistinguishable from the "prototype" dog. This is hard creationism, which is usually expressed by biblical literalists and young Earth creationists, but held by some forms of gap creationists.
  3. Modern biological life is the product of some (usually unspecified) mix of evolution and intervention. An "agent" - generally God - intervenes at one or more stages of an otherwise evolutionary process. For example, a creature does not have any organ for sight... then the agent intervenes... and the creature has an eye within one generation (or, rarely, a couple of generations, with a basic form being provided by the agent, then refined by either the agent or natural evolution) that it could not have evolved without the agent's intervention. This is "soft" creationism, which is held by numerous forms of gap creationism, day-age creationism (which HereticMonkey has advocated), progressive creationism and... shock! ... ID.
Of course, naturalists and atheists hold to the first form... sans the god. You could call it "unguided" or "non-theistic" evolution, i suppose.

And as for whether or not ID's "intelligent agent" is God... i'll deal with that later.
HereticMonkey
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
But, isn't it so strange how our eyes are so well suited for us without ID? When in dark, they focus and soon enough we can see all-right, we split and view colors so correctly, etc...

Sorry for the overly blunt message, need to run...

That's just a refinement...Once you have an eye, color vision and focusing at night are basically fait accompli. A better question would be how did the big brain develop (considering how energy inefficient it is, it's interesting that it survived to speciation), why vertebrates only have 0/2/4 limbs, and how the vertebrates that were are ancestors survived the Burgess Shale event and why the other species didn't. There are a number of issues that are still considered mysteries; I still want to know why placebos have an effect when there is no reason they should, or why prayer appears to be successful more than it has any right to be.

I find it interesting that you require a source for what amounts to a personal belief. I would, however, point out that people have expressed the belief before; both Einstein and Oppenheimer would appear to share the belief that there is some form of guiding force, or that there was.

That said, I'm finding it interesting that the atheists on this board are more dogmatic than the supposed religious nuts, even while decrying it. Religion will always be a personal question, and up to personal explanation. It's just interesting that you have a new form of religion, based on the spirituality of science bereft of a personified deity, and that you want it documented; it's interesting because a lot of adherents are trying to define it themselves. Give us a few years, yeesh; it's a new thing and not everyone knows what to think about it...It was interesting googling "science spirituality", of course...

BTW, Bikerman: I found your post on the other board re: macro-evolution. A better question to ask, and more relevant, is whether or not they believe in some form of superior or guiding intelligence, and not necessarily the Judaio-Christian version. It would be a bit more relevant to the question at hand...

HM
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
A better question would be how did the big brain develop (considering how energy inefficient it is, it's interesting that it survived to speciation), why vertebrates only have 0/2/4 limbs, and how the vertebrates that were are ancestors survived the Burgess Shale event and why the other species didn't. There are a number of issues that are still considered mysteries; I still want to know why placebos have an effect when there is no reason they should, or why prayer appears to be successful more than it has any right to be.

Firstly - just because something is not completely known at the moment, does not mean that offers support for ID - it doesn't. Biology, like all science, is constantly looking at new problems and there are still unknowns which will require more work. That does not mean that solutions will not be forthcoming and it certainly does not provide 'evidence by default' for ID. There are many 'mysteries' left for science to solve and perhaps there always will be. That does not indicate that such things are beyond science, merely that science has not yet solved them.
In this thread the specific question is whether ID is science or religion - ie is there any scientific method and scientific evidence to support the thesis of Intelligent Design. The question is not 'has science explained everything' - it hasn't.

Having said that, we can look at your questions. Briefly, in order;
1) Evolution of the big brain.
Genetic evidence
Palaeontological hypothesis

2) Why vertebrates have even numbers of limbs.
Land vertebrates evolved from a common ancestor that had 4 limbs (Sarcopterygii). Any 'sudden' change to the number of limbs would have been lethal from a selection point of view. Evolution works in gradual steps and each new change must offer a selection advantage. There would be no advantage in a mutation that produced a new proto-limb (ie something that might evolve into a new limb) so land vertebrates retain 4 limbs (snakes and some reptiles gradually lost their limbs over time but many still retain the vestigial bones in the skeleton).
Aquatic mammals have vestigial limbs which evolved into flippers and flukes.
Birds have 4 limbs but 2 evolved into wings.
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/HigEvoVer.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/V/Vertebrates.html

3) The Burgess Shale.
I'm not sure what the question is. The shale preserves fossils from the mid Cambrian era (500ish million yrs ago) and contains a selection of different fossils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_Shale
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/burgess.html

4) Placebo effect. (What has this got to do with ID?)
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/explanation.php?dir=articles/explanations&article=placebo_effect.php

5) Effectiveness of prayer (What has this got to do with ID?)
The only large scale scientific study I know of shows that prayer is NOT effective. This was conducted by the Templeton Foundation (a source sympathetic to religion) under proper scientific conditions (double-blind) and showed that prayer has no measurable effect on the recovery of patients.
The full pdf of the study can be read HERE

HereticMonkey wrote:
I find it interesting that you require a source for what amounts to a personal belief. I would, however, point out that people have expressed the belief before; both Einstein and Oppenheimer would appear to share the belief that there is some form of guiding force, or that there was.
The question is not whether ID is a belief but whether it is scientific. Whether Einstein was a Deist or an atheist is another topic for another thread, he certainly wasn't a supporter of ID.
HereticMonkey wrote:
That said, I'm finding it interesting that the atheists on this board are more dogmatic than the supposed religious nuts, even while decrying it. Religion will always be a personal question, and up to personal explanation. It's just interesting that you have a new form of religion, based on the spirituality of science bereft of a personified deity, and that you want it documented; it's interesting because a lot of adherents are trying to define it themselves. Give us a few years, yeesh; it's a new thing and not everyone knows what to think about it...It was interesting googling "science spirituality", of course...
Dogmatic in what sense? ID is not 'bereft' of a personified deity as has previously been explained. Your personal version of ID might be, but the generally accepted form of ID, and the one I believe that most ID supporters believe in, is based very firmly around the Christian God of the bible. As I have previously said, if you have evidence to support your contention - that most supporters of ID believe your version - then please provide it. I have provided the version which is documented on the Discovery Institute website and Indi has provided the definition from an ID text on the matter.
Since we are asking whether ID is scientific it is perfectly reasonable to ask for, and provide, evidence rather than personal anecdote. Nobody is denying that ID is a personal belief for some people - that is not the point of the thread. The question I posed was 'is ID science or religion?'. If you are saying it is religion then fine. The controversy arises, as I am sure you are aware, because supporters of ID like to claim that it has a scientific basis and forms a scientific alternative to evolution theory. This distinguishes it from other religious faiths, which do not make such a claim, and thus it is correct to test the claim to see if it is valid. That is the purpose of this thread.
HereticMonkey wrote:
BTW, Bikerman: I found your post on the other board re: macro-evolution. A better question to ask, and more relevant, is whether or not they believe in some form of superior or guiding intelligence, and not necessarily the Judaio-Christian version. It would be a bit more relevant to the question at hand...
That particular question was formed by another poster who was spouting ID propoganda, so I asked it in exactly the form he put it, in order to be completely fair and above board.
You can check the thread for yourself below. Feel free to ask your question on the thread, but the answer, I suspect, will be no.
http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1200880046

Last edited by Bikerman on Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:36 am; edited 1 time in total
Indi
As promised:
Indi wrote:
And as for whether or not ID's "intelligent agent" is God... i'll deal with that later.


There are two ways to approach this question.


Option 1. Listen to ID experts.


i'll just simply to quote the words of the creators and main proponents of ID themselves. Let's start with Dr. William Dembski, the intellectual superpower of the ID movement. Dembski is the brains behind "the design inference", the epistemological heart of ID. He's also responsible for the "explanatory filter" to recognize the presence of design in any system, "complex specified information" to determine the relationship between complexity and specificity (design), and other such concepts. What does Dembski have to say about the "intelligent designer"?
William Dembski, on rejecting 'naturalism' in science wrote:
To lift that pall will require a new generation of scholars and professionals who explicitly reject naturalism and consciously seek to understand the design that God has placed in the world...

But wait... maybe he doesn't mean the Christian god?
William Dembski, after ID was ruled creationism in Dover wrote:
This galvanizes the Christian community. People I'm talking to say we're going to be raising a whole lot more funds now.

But... but... creationism is about miracles! You can't include miracles in science, right?
William Dembski, on including miracles in science wrote:
To define a miracle as a violation or suspension or overriding of natural laws is already to presuppose what nature is like (namely, that nature is a closed causal nexus governed by inviolable rules). It is also to impose prior limits on divine action.

Oh, but he was just speaking as a Christian and not a scientist! He has his Christian beliefs, and he has his scientific training, and he has clearly separated the two. That's why ID is science.
William Dembski, on what ID is wrote:
Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel¹ restated in the idiom of information theory.

Whoops.

Then there's Dr. Micheal Behe. If Dembski represents the intellectual, logical and epistemological justification for ID, Behe represents the science. It is Behe who came up with the idea of "irreducible complexity" in biological systems (which is a special case of Dembski's specified complexity, and thus, according to Dembski's design inference, allows us to infer the existence of a designer). It is also Behe who provides the ID movement with their cutting edge scientific examples, like the bacterial flagellum and the clotting response. So how does Behe justify appealing to an intelligent designer?
Micheal Behe, on who gets to call on angels of design wrote:
But a Darwinist cannot invoke angels adding staples to traps, because the angels are on OUR side

Angels? Surely Behe is just being figurative, and he does not really believe that mystical explanations should be invoked in science.
Micheal Behe, on mysticism being beside the point wrote:
Behe explains the theory points out weaknesses in Darwin's theory of evolution and tries to present the 'best explanation of how the world got here.' The fact that the theory's explanation is mystical, says Behe, is beside the point.

Er... so Behe does acknowledge that ID appeals to the mystical. But that doesn't imply God.
Micheal Behe, on the fact that it does imply God wrote:
In The Edge of Evolution I argue that life had to be designed to a very great degree of detail in order to exist. So, if one believes (as I do) that the designer is God, then God planned life on earth down to the molecular level.


Need i go on? ^_^; It only gets worse from there, believe it or not. i picked the two most scientific, least religious, representatives of the ID movement. i could have picked Philip Johnson. ^_^; Or Dean H. Kenyon or Charles Thaxton. All of whom are leaders of the ID movement, but are also outspoken creationists. But that would be like shooting ichthys in a barrel.


Option 2. Let's consider ID as presented by ID proponents.


Let's consider the watered-down descriptions of ID, the ones that don't specifically name God, or any religious entity, as the "intelligent designer". Assume that those are scientifically valid (they're not, by the way - they're not even philosophically or conceptually valid).

According to ID, you can infer a designer by looking at a designed object. Let's go a step further using that same logic. Let's assume that once you've inferred a designer, you can now infer characteristics of that designer. Let's try that with the "intelligent designer" of ID.

According to some ID proponents, the designer doesn't have to be a supernatural or mystical being. They claim that it could be some super-intelligent aliens or something. Can it?

Of course not. ^_^; Don't be absurd. If you have to appeal to aliens to explain our world's complexity, and our world's complexity is beyond our comprehension, then these aliens must be even more complex than we are. And who designed them? It must be something even more complex! And who designed that designer? Still more complexity, and so on and so forth. You can't solve this cycle by continuing to appeal to aliens. Eventually, you need something divine. You need a god.

But does it have to be the Judaistic god?

Technically no. However, whatever god it is, it has to have certain specific characteristics. Those characteristics map perfectly onto the Judaistic god, one to one. They don't map so well onto the gods of alternative religions. This is why we see such enormous support among Christians (given that all proponents are Christian), mediocre support among Muslims and Jews, and piddling support from just about everywhere else (although, oddly, it turns out that Hare Krishna followers have embraced ID... but if you think the Christian version is unscientific... wait till you hear theirs).

It's difficult to pin it down any more than this, because ID proponents have been so desperately avoiding pinning down the details of the theory. They know the moment they do, it will be impossible not to recognize the specific god they have in mind. In order to give ID the broadest appeal, they have to keep it vague... and they have openly admitted to this tactic!!!



So, that's the best i can do for now: all ID proponents claim ID's designer is the Christan god, and while ID itself is too vague to pin that down for sure, it does limit the range so much that most other religions are quite lukewarm on the idea. But that's not to say that pinning it down to God is totally impossible. i'm sure that if ID proponents would ever get around to actually publishing details of the theory, rather than just vague insinuations that it "undermines Darwinism", we'd have all the evidence that we need to give the designer a name.

In the meantime:
William Dembski, in his own words wrote:
When asked in a December interview whether his research concluded that God is the Intelligent Designer, Dembski stated "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."



¹ The Logos theology of John's Gospel is from the beginning of the Gospel of John, John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In plain English, everything starts with God, and anything that doesn't start with God is inherently flawed. By that logic, science, since it starts with the assumption that nature can be understood in terms of nature by studying nature, is inherently flawed.
Soulfire
Bikerman wrote:

1) Is Intelligent Design (ID) scientific? Is it a valid scientific hypothesis and is it supported by any evidence? What is the definition of ID and how can it be tested?

Well, I feel that it is scientific only to the extent that there are (few as they may be) "scientists" out there who support the idea. Bear in mind that the vast majority of scientists would dismiss ID.

I strongly feel that nobody can answer whether or not it is a hypothesis because in order for a statement to be a hypothesis, there must be some way to test for it's wrongness. And, to this day, we have not seen an accurate enough experiment to test for wrongess in this situation. It then goes without saying that I feel it cannot be tested, at least with our current knowledge and capabilities.

Much like evolutionary theory (despite the flames I may get for this), ID is [at least] partially faith-based.

Bikerman wrote:
2) Is ID distinct from Creationism? Is ID functionally different from creationism? Are the supporters of ID different and distinct from the supporters of creationism?

I think that it's clear to see the declining trend in religion across the nation, if not, the world. We as a society are moving away from organized religion and more towards individualism, and discovering our own personal beliefs.

I feel that ID is simply a desperate attempt by creationists to inject their ideas into the science curriculum. Fundamentally, no, ID does not differ from Creationism.

The one thing I would like to say is that I tend to associate Creationism with the Bible and Christianity (regardless of the fact that it is not the only creation-theory religion), and I tend to view ID as more of a universal and acceptably adaptation of creationism. One that works in more than just Christianity.

Last edited by Soulfire on Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:36 am; edited 1 time in total
Bikerman
Soulfire wrote:
Much like evolution (despite the flames I may get for this), ID is [at least] partially faith-based.
Well I hope there are no flames and I personally have no intention of flaming you.
I would point out that evolution is an observable fact. We can observe it in action in the lab. For example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/11/evolution

Evolutionary theory (ie the theory that every species, including man, arose via natural selection) is indeed only a 'theory' in that we obviously cannot go back and look. I think the word 'faith' is perhaps the wrong one to use, however, although I do take the point. Faith is normally a word we use when there is lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary. There is much evidence to support evolutionary theory. Indeed the evidence is strong to the point of being overwhelming. Evolutionary theory is, therefore, a valid scientific theory in that it can be tested (if any fossil is found to be in the wrong geological layer then the theory could fall completely), and it makes predictions about which fossils should be found, predictions which have been proven correct time after time.
You say that we cannot know whether ID is a hypothesis or not because it cannot be tested. The very fact that it cannot be tested means it is not a valid scientific hypothesis. Science must be testable.

*I am distinguishing an hypothesis (something which can be tested but hasn't yet been) from a theory (something which can be tested and has been)

PS I edited this posting before I saw the reply below and this accounts for the difference between the quote below and this version of the posting. I do not believe there are any substantive differences and I agree with and welcome soulfire's acceptance of the distinctions made.

Last edited by Bikerman on Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:39 am; edited 1 time in total
Soulfire
Bikerman wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
Much like evolution (despite the flames I may get for this), ID is [at least] partially faith-based.
Well I hope there are no flames and I personally have no intention of flaming you.
I would point out that evolution is an observable fact. We can observe it in action in the lab. For example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/11/evolution

Evolutionary theory (ie the theory that every species, including man, arose via natural selection) is indeed only a 'theory' in that we obviously cannot go back and look. I think the word 'faith' is perhaps the wrong one to use, however, although I do take the point. Faith is normally a word we use when there is lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary. There is much evidence to support evolutionary theory. Indeed the evidence is strong to the point of being overwhelming. Evolutionary theory is, therefore, a valid scientific theory in that it can be tested (if any fossil is found to be in the wrong geological layer then the theory could fall completely), and it makes predictions about which fossils should be found, predictions which have been proven correct time after time.
ID is, as you say, not even a proper hypothesis, let alone a theory,* since there is no definitive test we can apply to it.

*I am distinguishing an hypothesis from a theory according to the categorisation given by the sticky in the science forum.

Very true, I should've made the distinction, because I do know for fact that evolution happens.

What I was really referring to, as you kindly corrected (thanks!) was the evolutionary theory.
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
You say that we cannot know whether ID is a hypothesis or not because it cannot be tested. The very fact that it cannot be tested means it is not a valid scientific hypothesis. Science must be testable.

i disagree. i say ID can be tested.

Perhaps the next thing i should do is outline what the actual theory of ID is. i was hoping to leave that task to an ID proponent.
spinout
ID Science OR Religion?

Hm, we got the science (sooner or later ) AND we got the religion...
Bikerman
spinout wrote:
ID Science OR Religion?

Hm, we got the science (sooner or later ) AND we got the religion...

What does that mean? Are you saying that ID is both science and religion? Or that it is religion and will become science? I don't understand the point.
HereticMonkey
Indi wrote:

all ID proponents claim ID's designer is the Christan god, and while ID itself is too vague to pin that down for sure, it does limit the range so much that most other religions are quite lukewarm on the idea.

If this is the case, then why did you point out Hare Krishna's version? Other than that, your post is highly logical, but the basis of that logic is off because ID itself is currently undergoing some changes, creating actually three kinds of ID. You have those that are trying to make Creationism more palatable, and these people should be shot repeatedly; that The World was created in six days, that evolution is bogus, and even that everything is the Will of God are concepts that any rational person should deny.

The second are those that sound like they don't know where Science begins and where Religion begins. In this case they are looking for ways to demonstrate that their religious views are rational, and thus abusing their position as scientists. In essence, they aren't looking at their results objectively, and fixing any results that disagree with their results. More people that should be shot.

The third group is sort of in a weird situation. Backing up for a moment: There is the perspective that there is a difference between "religious" and "spiritual". The first are those that believe in the rules of the religion before the message of the religion; generally, when you are dealing with the pro-life group and Creationists, it's the religious that you're dealing with. On the other hand, the "spiritual" types go for the message; think Mother Theresa types here. The basic difference is that whereas the religious types are more likely to take The Bible literally, the spiritual types are more likely to take it figuratively.

This is sort of the problem: This last group doesn't have much representation in the discussion, especially as they tend to recognize that they are scientists and not philosophers, and so they don't tend to write much of their philosophy down, and tend to look it as something that would cause them a loss in popularity (vas? You thought scientists are immune to peer pressure? Most research requires a certain degree of politicking and looking for grants; if the scientist in question holds questionable beliefs it can thus be a bad thing for the career.). Thus, you sort of have "closeted scientists"; they have these beliefs, they aren't sure about them, and there is the fear that if they are revealed there will be repercussions.

Addressing another point you brought up, the problem is that a lot of scientists are debating how much of the universe formed on its own. I appreciate that there is a certain amount of the anthropomorphic principle in play here, but there are a number of interesting issues to be considered here as well. We know that there can be no dragons because the classic dragon has six limbs (two legs, two arms, and two wings); there are no six-limbed vertebrates. The double-blind experiment is another interesting anomaly, as it can't be recorded. The effects of prayer are also interesting; the results are all over the map regardless of the religion or philosophy of the scientist doing the experiment or research. And then there is the whole issue of parapsychology and affirmations.

There is just too much weirdness that doesn't follow the rules, or where the rules are too fast and loose to be completely natural. It's too much like looking at a garden, and too coincidental, too clean. If I saw a section of forest where there were no weeds, the trees were spaced at regular intervals, and where the rocks were all the exact same height, I would seriously question to what degree that section was natural.

It's interesting that Sagan and Hawking have written of the spirituality of the universe, and even Einstein believes in God, even if it's just that of Spinoza. It should be noted that I'm not questioning that atheism is needed to counter the fundies; I think that they are, in that regard, a force that is fundamentally needed. However, I do question to what degree it is needed in the scientific community, and whether or not the need to prove the (non-)existence of God is a valid quest or distraction.

As long as science moves forward, does it matter what the scientist believes in? I think not, and that we should all be allowed to define our own beliefs, not just those that are popular in the social arena...

HM
HereticMonkey
Indi wrote:

i disagree. i say ID can be tested.

Perhaps the next thing i should do is outline what the actual theory of ID is. i was hoping to leave that task to an ID proponent.


Yeah, except that we don't define the entity involved, outside of it existing...

HM
HereticMonkey
Bikerman wrote:

What does that mean? Are you saying that ID is both science and religion? Or that it is religion and will become science? I don't understand the point.


Why not as a philosophy that inspires scientists to explore the universe?

HM
Indi
HereticMonkey wrote:
Indi wrote:

all ID proponents claim ID's designer is the Christan god, and while ID itself is too vague to pin that down for sure, it does limit the range so much that most other religions are quite lukewarm on the idea.

If this is the case, then why did you point out Hare Krishna's version? Other than that, your post is highly logical...

None of ID's proponents are Hare Krishna. All are Christian.

The Hare Krishna folk have stated their support for ID, but have done nothing else. Stating support does not make one a proponent, it makes one a supporter.

Furthermore... i'd be careful about accepting them as fellow supporters of ID. ^_^; They may like the idea of ID (because it suits the expressly stated religious aims of ISKCON to undermine "materialist science"), but that doesn't mean they have any real respect for the basis of ID. To put it bluntly, they're using information gleaned from UFO abductions (among other things) as their reason for supporting ID.

But, hey, if you think ID needs support that bad that they'll take it wherever they can get it... ^_^; i was doing ID a favour by not counting the quotes made by ISKCON among the ID support quotes. You want me to start quoting Cremo? ^_^; i have no problems with that.

HereticMonkey wrote:
...ID itself is currently undergoing some changes, creating actually three kinds of ID. You have those that are trying to make Creationism more palatable, and these people should be shot repeatedly; that The World was created in six days, that evolution is bogus, and even that everything is the Will of God are concepts that any rational person should deny.

The second are those that sound like they don't know where Science begins and where Religion begins. In this case they are looking for ways to demonstrate that their religious views are rational, and thus abusing their position as scientists. In essence, they aren't looking at their results objectively, and fixing any results that disagree with their results. More people that should be shot.

The third group is sort of in a weird situation. Backing up for a moment: There is the perspective that there is a difference between "religious" and "spiritual". The first are those that believe in the rules of the religion before the message of the religion; generally, when you are dealing with the pro-life group and Creationists, it's the religious that you're dealing with. On the other hand, the "spiritual" types go for the message; think Mother Theresa types here. The basic difference is that whereas the religious types are more likely to take The Bible literally, the spiritual types are more likely to take it figuratively.

All of this is nonsense.

There is one and only one theory of intelligent design. There are no factions, as you claim. Yes, there are many different groups that embrace ID, ranging from young Earth creationists, to old-world progressive evolutionists (including the Hare Krishna crew). But there is only one theory. Those groups simply differ on how to interpret the theory to fit their own pet religious theories (some try to cram ID into a young Earth timeline, others don't... still others set intermediate dates that they say they were told about by UFOs, no names mentioned).

The ID movement has adopted what they call a "big tent strategy", which is a sly way to say they present ID in such a way as to make it palatable to the largest group possible. In practise, that means they are vague about any points of the theory that might raise contention, and that might break up ID's (non-scientific) support base. Practical examples are the refusal to speculate on the nature of the "designer" (to imply that it could be any god for any religion, or even a non-divine being or intelligence for secularists), the hemming and hawing over drawing up any sort of time lines (to avoid angering young Earthers or old Earthers), and the persistent declines about outlining the mechanisms of this design.

If ID isn't a religious movement - if it really is a science, as its proponents claim - then who gives a crap about the religious bickering between its adherents? Those problems are their religious concerns, and have no relevance on the validity of ID as a science.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Addressing another point you brought up, the problem is that a lot of scientists are debating how much of the universe formed on its own.

"A lot"? How many? Show us the studies, or the literature reviews to support this claim.

HereticMonkey wrote:
I appreciate that there is a certain amount of the anthropomorphic principle in play here, but there are a number of interesting issues to be considered here as well. We know that there can be no dragons because the classic dragon has six limbs (two legs, two arms, and two wings); there are no six-limbed vertebrates.

What?

HereticMonkey wrote:
The double-blind experiment is another interesting anomaly, as it can't be recorded.

Excuse me?

HereticMonkey wrote:
The effects of prayer are also interesting; the results are all over the map regardless of the religion or philosophy of the scientist doing the experiment or research.

Huh?

(For the record, every single properly-designed scientific study of the efficacy of prayer has yielded null results... or worse (in the most recent case). Every study that has given positive results has been shown to have had procedural problems (usually poor control, or no control).)

HereticMonkey wrote:
And then there is the whole issue of parapsychology and affirmations.

The hell does that - or any of this - have to do with ID?

HereticMonkey wrote:
There is just too much weirdness that doesn't follow the rules, or where the rules are too fast and loose to be completely natural. It's too much like looking at a garden, and too coincidental, too clean. If I saw a section of forest where there were no weeds, the trees were spaced at regular intervals, and where the rocks were all the exact same height, I would seriously question to what degree that section was natural.

Science is not about personal opinions. Your lack of imagination does not represent a scientific challenge.

HereticMonkey wrote:
It's interesting that Sagan and Hawking have written of the spirituality of the universe, and even Einstein believes in God, even if it's just that of Spinoza.

Science is not about personal beliefs. Sagan could have believed the Earth was flat, and it wouldn't have devalued or otherwise called into question his work on the atmosphere of Venus.

(Incidentally... Sagan and Hawking?!?! First of all, Sagan's "god" was the same as Einstein's "god". He wrote about spiritual experiences in exactly the same way Einstein did - experiencing the natural universe in all its glory is what spiritualism is, to both of them. Hawking is harder to pin down - some label him deist, some label him atheist - but one thing's for sure, he did not write about the "spirituality" of the universe. He wrote that the universe didn't need a god.)

HereticMonkey wrote:
It should be noted that I'm not questioning that atheism is needed to counter the fundies; I think that they are, in that regard, a force that is fundamentally needed. However, I do question to what degree it is needed in the scientific community, and whether or not the need to prove the (non-)existence of God is a valid quest or distraction.

Science is not about personal beliefs. Who cares if you're atheist or not? It has no relevance to whether ID is a scientific theory, and whether or not it is correct.

Science is also not about proving or disproving the existence of any god. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying - trying to usurp science for their religious agenda.

HereticMonkey wrote:
As long as science moves forward, does it matter what the scientist believes in? I think not, and that we should all be allowed to define our own beliefs, not just those that are popular in the social arena...

Science is not about personal beliefs. Most ID proponents are young Earth creationists (didn't know that, i bet). So what? That's not reason enough to ditch the theory (as i already said).

However, ID's proponents have thus far (for political reasons, not scientific - their "big tent strategy") refused to answer any questions about the nature of this designer... except to state that it is the Christian god. At that point, we're not discussing their personal beliefs any more. We are discussing a (supposedly, according to them) scientific theory that they have devised and/or are supporting, that they claim (not just believe! claim!!!) points to the existence of their god. By doing that, they've brought their god, and their religion, into the cold, hard light of science. Not a bright move, i'd say - and they know it, which is why they dance around it so much before finally getting cornered.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Yeah, except that we don't define the entity involved, outside of it existing...

If ID is science, ID must answer to scientific questions. You can't just say "and then something happened" in a scientific theory and expect to go unchallenged... you must present a valid hypothesis for what happened. If you claim a mechanism has caused some event, you must identify the mechanism. If you claim a designer, you must identify the designer.

Every time an ID proponent has done so, they've fingered God (the Christian god). i'd say ID has identified the entity involved, as much as they'd like to deny that. If they want to turn around and say that that was just personal speculation that's separate from the theory proper, fine - but they still have to identify the designer.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Why not as a philosophy that inspires scientists to explore the universe?

Because scientists have a philosophy. It's called the scientific method. It's also known as methodological naturalism. It's worked for around 400 years now, in more or less its current form. It's taken us from the Renaissance to the Space Age and promises to go beyond.

Why break it? Seriously. It's worked fantastically so far, and there's no sign in sight that it is slowing. Why screw with it?

If you want to make a new field based on this new philosophy, go nuts. i'd applaud the effort. Why screw around with science when it's working so well? Why not leave science be and make a new field? If the new philosophy works, the new field may out-pace science.

i wouldn't bet on it, though.
Klaw 2
I Personal think that Intelligent Design is just creatinalism but just presented but in a slightly different way. I personal dont think there's a God who crreated us, the earth and universe where created in just under a week.

I have read the book "Who Built The Moon?" which (sort of) concludes that whe are most likely the result of an alien race (or something intelligent) "building" our solar system and programming DNA strings to eventually evolve into us. Its actually too complicated to tell everything here but it is sort of guided evolution. Which is something I think of the most likely and I WANT to believe in.

Some people in favor of ID state that our existence couldn't be by chanche since it is really small. So small that we can't excist by chance

But since the universe is endless... as wel in space AND time (litle bit of math here)
"something" X endless X endless = endless

(as long as "something" is not zero or below zero(minus)). So the chance that we exist is again very high(endless).

Anyway I think that someone thought that Christanity should be saved and invented ID.
Science, religion and philosophy are attempting to solve the questions of "why are we here", "where do we come from" and "where are we going". Those questions are really hard to answer in a philosophical way and scientific way.
But religions (espacially Christanity) have been trying and are trying to interfere whith both science and philosophy. During the middleages in Europe this was the Worst. Since the middleages the church has a weaker and weaker grip on both in the west. (Religion is good as long as it isn't organised.)
But ID is just slowing the process down (Of finding those important answers).

I am familiar with the most important arguments (Irreducible complexity) (Specified complexity) of ID and i think they are rather weak at most. As I said it is just slowing down the process of our understanding of the universe.
Indi
Klaw 2 wrote:
I have read the book "Who Built The Moon?" which (sort of) concludes that whe are most likely the result of an alien race (or something intelligent) "building" our solar system and programming DNA strings to eventually evolve into us. Its actually too complicated to tell everything here but it is sort of guided evolution. Which is something I think of the most likely and I WANT to believe in.

Er... pardon me for pointing out the obvious... but aside for substituting an alien designer for a divine designer... isn't that just ID all over again?
Bikerman
Klaw 2 wrote:
But since the universe is endless... as wel in space AND time (litle bit of math here)
"something" X endless X endless = endless

(as long as "something" is not zero or below zero(minus)). So the chance that we exist is again very high(endless).

Unfortunately the math does not work. Firstly, the universe is not endless in time. Current estimates are that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old. Secondly, you cannot separate space and time in this way since they are part of the same thing - spacetime. In math they would be dependant variables. Therefore you cannot do the 'sum' infinite time multiplied by infinite space because it doesn't make sense.
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
This is sort of the problem: This last group doesn't have much representation in the discussion, especially as they tend to recognize that they are scientists and not philosophers, and so they don't tend to write much of their philosophy down, and tend to look it as something that would cause them a loss in popularity (vas? You thought scientists are immune to peer pressure? Most research requires a certain degree of politicking and looking for grants; if the scientist in question holds questionable beliefs it can thus be a bad thing for the career.). Thus, you sort of have "closeted scientists"; they have these beliefs, they aren't sure about them, and there is the fear that if they are revealed there will be repercussions.

Firstly I'm not sure what this group is. You seem to indicate that it is a group that distinguishes spirituality from religion. I have no problem with that. There are many (including myself) who would like to distinguish the two. Spirituality is, to me, a sense of wonder at creation. Many scientists have expressed this 'wonder'. Einstein did so on many occasions and this has been frequently assumed to mean he was a Deist (or even a Theist). Dawkins expresses the same wonder as do many other famous scientists.

This is distinct and separate, however, from some sort of belief that, because creation is wonderful, there must be a designer. The idea that scientists are somehow restricted from talking about their ideas of spirituality is bogus. Many scientists have talked about such notions (Dawkins himself has been quite effusive on the matter in several essays). That is completely different from talking AS a scientist on matters of natural philosophy. When scientists publish material in their own discipline then they must ensure that what they publish is science - that is their job. They are completely free to publish outside their scientific role on any personal beliefs they may hold - and many scientists have done just that. I think the idea that science in some way restricts scientists from doing this is wrong. The simple fact is that most scientists have no such beliefs.

The fact is that most scientists realise that the world-view that science gives them is incompatible with creationism/ID and, if they are honest, then they must eschew such faiths. The idea that there are hosts of scientists out there who secretly believe in ID, but are afraid to express their beliefs, is a myth. We know this to be true since there are a few scientists who do indeed express belief in ID, and their tenure remains secure - indeed they have personally gained from expressing such beliefs. Personally I believe such scientists (Behe et al) are guilty of knowingly doing bad science in support of personal beliefs, and are, for that reason alone, undeserving of serious consideration as scientists. (Which is not to say that their 'thoughts' should be ignored, but IS to say that they should be given no scientific credence until they are published in the peer-reviewed journals).
HereticMonkey
Indi wrote:
There is one and only one theory of intelligent design.

Like there is only one form of atheism, one form of Christianity, one form of Buddhism, one form Judaism, one form of...you get the idea. Any belief , or system thereof, will have its own factions, sects, whatever, that have different perspectives or viewpoints on the same thing that may not match the generic viewpoint.

Quote:
If ID isn't a religious movement - if it really is a science, as its proponents claim - then who gives a crap about the religious bickering between its adherents? Those problems are their religious concerns, and have no relevance on the validity of ID as a science.

ID isn't a science; it's a belief. Just as atheism and Christianity are beliefs.

Quote:
"A lot"? How many? Show us the studies, or the literature reviews to support this claim.

Part of me is "why bother"". The other is that there have a number of interesting polls, which seem to indicate that a lot of scientists (62% according a poll in Time) believe in more significant than man that seems to have had a hand in how things developed. Just thought it was interesting...

Quote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
I appreciate that there is a certain amount of the anthropomorphic principle in play here, but there are a number of interesting issues to be considered here as well. We know that there can be no dragons because the classic dragon has six limbs (two legs, two arms, and two wings); there are no six-limbed vertebrates.

What?

In other words: Why no vertebrates that don't have any other limb arrangements other than 0/2/4? There are some representatives of these in the Burgess Shale, but none past that point.

Quote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
The double-blind experiment is another interesting anomaly, as it can't be recorded.

Excuse me?

Sorry; double slit experiment. A reasonably famous paradox: You can observe the lines clearly, but it comes out muddy when filmed. On the other hand, if filmed with no intent to record or so that the recording is destroyed as it's made, the lines can be seen.

Quote:
(For the record, every single properly-designed scientific study of the efficacy of prayer has yielded null results... or worse (in the most recent case). Every study that has given positive results has been shown to have had procedural problems (usually poor control, or no control).)

For the record: Er...no. Prayer has been shown to work for certain ailments, especially those where the doctor has suggested some form of slowing down. However, as the recent studies re: heart disease show, it's not consistent. Unless, of course, "properly-designed scientific study" only applies to those that you agree with. And note that I'm not including a good portion of the experiments due to an obvious religious bent, atheist or otherwise.

Quote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
And then there is the whole issue of parapsychology and affirmations.

The hell does that - or any of this - have to do with ID?

Ghosts and wishes; they seem to ignore a lot of science...In essence, stuff that can be verified that it works and/or exists, yet for which there is no logical scientific explanation.

Quote:
Science is not about personal opinions. Your lack of imagination does not represent a scientific challenge.

1) Science is nothing but personal opinions; they just have the advantage of working out a good percentage of the time. Consider phlogiston before you post...It was something that was "proven" to exist, and then we found that it wasn't there or needed. Interestingly, some scientists have been revisiting the concept in light of dark matter.

For that matter, consider extremophiles (life forms that exist in hostile environments); they exist in locations where biologists said that life is impossible. As any decent scientist will tell you, science is science until disproven; if it's able to be disproven, how is it not an opinion? (Something that was taught in my science classes, BTW...)

2) Who said anything about "scientific challenge" (whatever that means)? I'm not trying to challenge science, but rather limited thinking about it.



Quote:
(Incidentally... Sagan and Hawking?!?! First of all, Sagan's "god" was the same as Einstein's "god". He wrote about spiritual experiences in exactly the same way Einstein did - experiencing the natural universe in all its glory is what spiritualism is, to both of them. Hawking is harder to pin down - some label him deist, some label him atheist - but one thing's for sure, he did not write about the "spirituality" of the universe. He wrote that the universe didn't need a god.)

That there is some disagreement re: Hawking's belief is, in this case, noteworthy. I also disagree that being a Deist is necessarily atheist; doesn't it imply that, at least some point, that there was a god of some sort, and that this being had a hand in the universe? Keep in mind, BTW, that the version of ID I'm proposing is essentially Deist in nature, in that it's not reliant on a present deity..,

Quote:
Science is not about personal beliefs. Who cares if you're atheist or not? It has no relevance to whether ID is a scientific theory, and whether or not it is correct.

Apparently it does.

Quote:
Science is also not about proving or disproving the existence of any god. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying - trying to usurp science for their religious agenda.

And again, not trying to do that either. I'm just finding it interesting that I'm allowed to have any belief I want, as long as it doesn't disagree with yours.

Quote:
Science is not about personal beliefs. Most ID proponents are young Earth creationists (didn't know that, i bet). So what? That's not reason enough to ditch the theory (as i already said).

And, again, I reiterate that I'm not proposing by any stretch any form of Creationist theory ("Creationist theory" meaning that it has something to do with the creation of the Earth in six days or less). And science, just like religion, is about personal belief; it's a sad fact, but true nonetheless.

Quote:
By doing that, they've brought their god, and their religion, into the cold, hard light of science. Not a bright move, i'd say - and they know it, which is why they dance around it so much before finally getting cornered.

Ever think that the reason that some of us dance around it because, even though we see something interesting, we can't really define it, and people forcing a definition are there simply to disprove it? It's easy to disprove that an incomplete theory doesn't work; it doesn't really take all that brainpower or even basic common sense. It's just interesting that atheists are the flat-earthers this time, debunking something just because they don't believe in it before a proper hypothesis has even been put together.

As a side note, I would also slam those that think it's a legitimate religious path for the same reason; just because it explains some anomalies doesn't mean that it explains all of them or that it should be seen as an alternative to religion. Religion and science need to keep separate, at least in terms in which prove that, say, The Bible is 100% right. I think that I've shown that, even though I think that it's a great book and can be used to help with historical puzzles, or at least point out that some exist, The Bible quickly hits limits when it is used for more than a philosophical text.

In other words, religion may point to science, and science to religion, they shouldn't be mistaken for each other...


Quote:
If ID is science, ID must answer to scientific questions. You can't just say "and then something happened" in a scientific theory and expect to go unchallenged... you must present a valid hypothesis for what happened. If you claim a mechanism has caused some event, you must identify the mechanism. If you claim a designer, you must identify the designer.

As noted: Consider it a work in progress. No one is actively looking for a specific designer, but that's because everyone is too busy doing what got into it in the first place. Sorry....

Quote:
Every time an ID proponent has done so, they've fingered God (the Christian god). i'd say ID has identified the entity involved, as much as they'd like to deny that. If they want to turn around and say that that was just personal speculation that's separate from the theory proper, fine - but they still have to identify the designer.

Except that others have turned to Buddhism, others Hinduism, others pagan religions, and others just go for some sort of generic superior being. And of course there are those that believe that aliens are to blame. You're going with the Wikipedia entry; this is one of those times Wikipedia isn't all that accurate...


Quote:
Because scientists have a philosophy. It's called the scientific method. It's also known as methodological naturalism. It's worked for around 400 years now, in more or less its current form. It's taken us from the Renaissance to the Space Age and promises to go beyond.

That's a workplace methodology; not a philosophy...

Quote:
If you want to make a new field based on this new philosophy, go nuts. i'd applaud the effort. Why screw around with science when it's working so well? Why not leave science be and make a new field? If the new philosophy works, the new field may out-pace science.

Huh? Who said anything about replacing science...?

Quote:
i wouldn't bet on it, though.

Heh. Neither would I...

The thing to keep in mind is that I'm NOT (obviously) going with the version of ID as put forth by any form of Creationist; even though I personally believe in the Christian God, does not mean that I necessarily agree with everyone that also believes in Him, or that I think that forms of belief are necessarily limited to simply Christianity, and that there is room for even Atheism. Then again, I do tend towards optimism; I'm still waiting for atheists to realize that it's a religion...

HM
HereticMonkey
Bikerman wrote:
The fact is that most scientists realise that the world-view that science gives them is incompatible with creationism/ID and, if they are honest, then they must eschew such faiths.

Why? How is this a "fact"? You have too many scientists through out history that have very solid religious beliefs, and have done incredible things in science. For that matter, you have far too many scientists that were clergy; scientists are called monkish for good reason. If science and religion were incompatible, how would this happen? For that matter, how could you have scientists believing in some kind of spirituality of the universe due to their own investigations if the two were to be separate?

Sorry; but it fails the most basic test of the scientific theory in that there are too many counter-examples before you even get going...

HM
liljp617
HereticMonkey wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The fact is that most scientists realise that the world-view that science gives them is incompatible with creationism/ID and, if they are honest, then they must eschew such faiths.

Why? How is this a "fact"? You have too many scientists through out history that have very solid religious beliefs, and have done incredible things in science. For that matter, you have far too many scientists that were clergy; scientists are called monkish for good reason. If science and religion were incompatible, how would this happen? For that matter, how could you have scientists believing in some kind of spirituality of the universe due to their own investigations if the two were to be separate?

Sorry; but it fails the most basic test of the scientific theory in that there are too many counter-examples before you even get going...

HM

Those scientists said the Earth revolved around the sun because the Bible says/implies so.
Bryan_Bezzle
liljp617 wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The fact is that most scientists realise that the world-view that science gives them is incompatible with creationism/ID and, if they are honest, then they must eschew such faiths.

Why? How is this a "fact"? You have too many scientists through out history that have very solid religious beliefs, and have done incredible things in science. For that matter, you have far too many scientists that were clergy; scientists are called monkish for good reason. If science and religion were incompatible, how would this happen? For that matter, how could you have scientists believing in some kind of spirituality of the universe due to their own investigations if the two were to be separate?

Sorry; but it fails the most basic test of the scientific theory in that there are too many counter-examples before you even get going...

HM

Those scientists said the Earth revolved around the sun because the Bible says/implies so.



Heliocentric science isn't the only subject those scientists studied though.
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The fact is that most scientists realise that the world-view that science gives them is incompatible with creationism/ID and, if they are honest, then they must eschew such faiths.

Why? How is this a "fact"? You have too many scientists through out history that have very solid religious beliefs, and have done incredible things in science. For that matter, you have far too many scientists that were clergy; scientists are called monkish for good reason. If science and religion were incompatible, how would this happen? For that matter, how could you have scientists believing in some kind of spirituality of the universe due to their own investigations if the two were to be separate?

Sorry; but it fails the most basic test of the scientific theory in that there are too many counter-examples before you even get going...

HM

Well no - not really. I used the present tense, I am not talking about historical scientists who had little choice other than to be religious. I specifically said 'most scientists realise' which is a statement about most scientists today.
Why is it that you resort to such fallacious arguments? Namely;
  • Many scientists in history have been religious ergo science and religion are compatible. This has nothing to do with my statement or the fact that the situation is different today. The debate is about ID, not religion per se. The difference has already been covered.
  • Spirituality equates to creationism/ID. No, it doesn't
Now, my evidence for saying that most scientists reject creationism;
Well I went to the Creation Science website to find their list. This is a highly pro-creationist site and naturally they would wish to present the best possible scientific credentials they can. Nevertheless they list about 100 scientists* who believe in creationism. I am accepting that all the people they list are scientists (which is a big 'gimme' since many of them are clearly not practicing scientists).
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_creationsci/
So I said 'most scientists'. How many scientists are there worldwide? I don't know the exact number. Certainly tens of thousands. Probably hundreds of thousands. How many express a belief in ID/Creationism? According to the ICR website about 100*. I think that qualifies as 'most'. I'm perfectly willing to believe that the ICR list is not exhaustive and that there are other scientists out there who believe in ID, and if you have some evidence that there are thousands of creationist scientists out there then let's see it. Otherwise my statement stands. (Remember - in science the onus is on disproving the statement, not proving it).

PS - I counted - there are 80 names listed.

http://skepdic.com/creation.html
Klaw 2
Indi wrote:
Klaw 2 wrote:
I have read the book "Who Built The Moon?" which (sort of) concludes that whe are most likely the result of an alien race (or something intelligent) "building" our solar system and programming DNA strings to eventually evolve into us. Its actually too complicated to tell everything here but it is sort of guided evolution. Which is something I think of the most likely and I WANT to believe in.

Er... pardon me for pointing out the obvious... but aside for substituting an alien designer for a divine designer... isn't that just ID all over again?


No it concludes that all the planets, the moon etc. etc. where "built"or placed to make a good place (earth) for us humans then they planted bacteria which where Proframmed to turn into us humans.
ID is that there where humans suddenly out of blue. The book states that we are the result of a really long evolution.


Bikerman wrote:
Klaw 2 wrote:
But since the universe is endless... as wel in space AND time (litle bit of math here)
"something" X endless X endless = endless

(as long as "something" is not zero or below zero(minus)). So the chance that we exist is again very high(endless).

Unfortunately the math does not work. Firstly, the universe is not endless in time. Current estimates are that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old. Secondly, you cannot separate space and time in this way since they are part of the same thing - spacetime. In math they would be dependant variables. Therefore you cannot do the 'sum' infinite time multiplied by infinite space because it doesn't make sense.


I tried it to make it simple but here I go: ((it is somewhat Philosophical))

As for the age of the universe: People say that the universe is 13.7 years old but who knows that for shure?? Maybe longer maybe shorter this is based on models where data has been added. However these models are theoretic, there are assumptions built into the models and the data in the model (the variables) may also be wrong or corrupted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe#Age_as_a_function_of_cosmological_parameters (for how they calculater the age of the universe).

"Our" time is endless time, it has no start nor an end so in it self is endless.
I do believe in the big bang. But before that there was something and after the end of our universe (if there is). There will be something too.
"Our" time is endless time, it has no start nor an end so in it self is endless. (I don't believer that energy or whatever energy is made of (or something even smaller, or somthing EVEN smaller. etc.etc.) will cease to excist. Because it's not logical that something that has an end has no beginning. (If something has an end it has an beginning). I believe there has been always something and therefore always will be something. And if there is something there is potential for life.
So there is ALWAYS potential for life. ENDLESS
As for "space" there's endless space I hope everyone agrees on that. also ENDLESS

So there is always potential for life and there is an endless amount of space for life to start in.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Indi wrote:
There is one and only one theory of intelligent design.

Like there is only one form of atheism, one form of Christianity, one form of Buddhism, one form Judaism, one form of...you get the idea. Any belief , or system thereof, will have its own factions, sects, whatever, that have different perspectives or viewpoints on the same thing that may not match the generic viewpoint.

Just for the record:
WRONG!! there is not 1 form of christanity. There are Catholics and there is Protestantism very different. Beside that there Christianity started of as a part of Judainsm. Budhism started because of a fight between Hindi's.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The fact is that most scientists realise that the world-view that science gives them is incompatible with creationism/ID and, if they are honest, then they must eschew such faiths.

Why? How is this a "fact"? You have too many scientists through out history that have very solid religious beliefs, and have done incredible things in science. For that matter, you have far too many scientists that were clergy; scientists are called monkish for good reason. If science and religion were incompatible, how would this happen? For that matter, how could you have scientists believing in some kind of spirituality of the universe due to their own investigations if the two were to be separate?

Sorry; but it fails the most basic test of the scientific theory in that there are too many counter-examples before you even get going...

HM


As Bikerman said above they HAD to practice those religions otherwise they would end up in a fire(Execution by burning) not hell. And especially in the middle ages in Europe the only people who could afford studying something where monks, clerks, etc. However a lot of scientists from the Middle East or Asia did come up with a lot of smart stuff which is religious at all. But all of that has been forgotten and/or ignored by modern Western scientists.
Bikerman
Klaw 2 wrote:
I tried it to make it simple but here I go: ((it is somewhat Philosophical))