Intelligent design

[Boerseun]

...certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause...

That's the popular line amongst IDers. Stuff underneath the Christmas tree is best explained by a big fat bearded guy with a red dress who has the only airborne reindeer in existence, who flies from house to house and somehow gets his fat gut through the chimney. Good explanation, and seeing as we know who to blame for the presents, we stop enquiring. Look, the evidence is there - the milk and cookies are gone. Ergo, Santa Claus did it. Telling the kids there's no Santa Claus gives them a proper idea of how Christmas works, but it kinda takes the fun out of it. Whether the kids want Santa to exist or not has no bearing at all on Santa's existence (or lack thereof).

 

I fear that the reason ID is believed at all, by a seemingly growing number of people, is because ID resonates with human emotions. Look - we're not alone! There's evidence in DNA! God's signature! It's true - there is a omnipotent deity! Doesn't make it any more or any less hogwash. For something to be science, emotions shouldn't have any bearing at all. And that's what ID is based on. Trout, you can claim the facelessness of the 'Creator/Intelligence/deity/alien' all you like - that's very noble of you - but Intelligent Design is Creationism with a new coat of paint. The thin end of the wedge. If we say "Intelligence did it", aren't we just saying there's stuff in science that we don't yet understand? What was this intelligence's motivation? What methods did it use? How did the intelligence go from point to point? Are we going to sample this intelligence, or are we going to blame everything on a faceless deity and stop enquiring?

 

"Intelligent Design" will be the death of science yet. What with increasing ignorance in the Western World, ID will find a growing support base. If they already have the power to meddle with school textbooks, where will it end? Are we going to have a situation a few years from now where real scientists will have to meet in the middle of the night to discuss that evil topic, 'evolution'?

 

ID harmonizes with ignorance and human emotions. And dancing around semantics and hogwash like 'irreducible complexity', etc. isn't going to change that fact very soon.

 

And by the way, Trout - your big toe was indeed initially built to grasp. The nerve bundles, skeletal construction etc. testifies to that fact. Take a look at a gorilla. It's big toe is in the middle of migrating forward to assist in balance. That's a hint of how it happened in humans. Gorillas aren't very efficient walkers on two legs, currently. They normally knuckle their way around. But they aren't very efficient tree-climbers, either. They are somewhere in between.

 

I'm going to stop typing now.

[C1ay]

I fear that the reason ID is believed at all, by a seemingly growing number of people, is because ID resonates with human emotions.

That reminded me of this article for some reason, Faith - A Psychological Disorder?

[cwes99_03]

I'm the straw man!

There's evidence in DNA! God's signature! It's true - there is a omnipotent deity!

:friday:

Anyway, I believe the legal debate is really based on whether ID is too close to a theological proposal or not. People, especially atheists, are worried that it is a theological statement. Perhaps they are well founded worries. While, ID does not itself say who the designer is, do not doubt that well over 90% of its supporters are christian.

That's what confounds me. Why a christian would hide behind a not well founded 'scientific' theory that says something created the earth because I can look at it and see it is too complex for it not to have been created. It sounds like the flat earth proposal, though i would argue that that is actually counter Bible teaching. These said that the earth must be flat, because after all I don't walk in a circle when I go from one side of my property to another.

Or even the earth centric universe idea. After all I can see the stars go across the sky at night.

 

Now, personally I believe the universe was created, by the God of the Bible. Based on my belief in that, I can see that the complexity would be much more easily explained via creation. It would leave no holes, like evolution currently has. But I dont say that God must exist because everything appears to have an intelligent design. It is reverse logic.

[questor]

it seems we are unable to grapple with the problem of defining God, so maybe this may help clarify the situation.

1. when people say God, they are referring to the God of the Bible, Allah, Yahweh, or whatever God human beings worship.

2. the ID people, as i understand it think that this God created the universe and life.

3. the scientists can't believe in the man made idea of the biblical God, therefore they claim there is no creator.

4. the scientist is locked up in the discussion of evolution, and fails to understand this is only one facet of the argument and only concerns earth, a minor planet.

5. the real question is this: was the universe created by an intelligence, or not?

if it was, then life also arose from the environment set up by this intelligence.

6. if there was no creator, then everything exists as random occurences.

7. if a creator exists, by definition, he/she/it posesses supernatural power and intelligence

8. this does not mean the creator would have human form, human characteristics,

or care about the human race. it would also mean the creator existed billions of years before life arrived, or before the Biblical God was created by man.

 

how could it be any other way?

[pgrmdave]

But it is a subjective opinion and nothing more, so recognizing that, and recognizing that this is a "Science" forum, I don't make an issue out of my subjective opinions.

 

Ah,but all I did was take Intelligent Design to it's logical conclusion. You CANNOT logically support intelligent design of animals without supporting logical design of atomic structures. You CANNOT logically support design of atomic structures without supporting a 'god' of some sort. Intelligent Design necessitates either a break in the logic (DNA is complex, thus it was designed. Atomic structure is complex, but it wasn't designed) or a god. Unless you can come up with a way to solve this problem without referring to a god.

[questor]

Dave, what is your definition of ''a God'' ?

[pgrmdave]

A conscious being who exists outside of our universe who is able to control events which occur within our universe. Well, that's the best I can do right now, at least.

[TRoutMac]

You CANNOT logically support intelligent design of animals without supporting logical design of atomic structures.

 

I agree completely, and that is one serious problem with the folks who might believe the designer is "E.T."

 

You CANNOT logically support design of atomic structures without supporting a 'god' of some sort.

 

Again, your subjective opinion. Don't get me wrong… it's not a subjective opinion that I disagree with, but it is a subjective opinion.

 

Unless you can come up with a way to solve this problem without referring to a god.

 

We have. It's called the "Intelligent Design" theory.

[Boerseun]

1. when people say God, they are referring to the God of the Bible, Allah, Yahweh, or whatever God human beings worship.

Agreed. Although God, Allah and Yahweh are all the God of Abraham - i.e. different perspectives of the same deity.

2. the ID people, as i understand it think that this God created the universe and life.

Nope. ID says that some form of intelligence was responsible. Whether this was God or ET is anybody's guess - but it was something or somebody with brains.

3. the scientists can't believe in the man made idea of the biblical God, therefore they claim there is no creator.

Nope, again. Science has never claimed that there was no creator. All that science has ever said as far as this topic is concerned, is that there is simply no way of testing for this currently, so for the time being this is a mere hypothesis, and not hard, rock-solid science. Regardless of what ID tells you. Come up with a valid experiment, and we can prove/disprove ID.

4. the scientist is locked up in the discussion of evolution, and fails to understand this is only one facet of the argument and only concerns earth, a minor planet.

Nope. Science isn't locked up with evolution. Science is locked up with a bunch of people who don't seem to understand the Scientific Method, and how something qualifies as Science in the first place.

5. the real question is this: was the universe created by an intelligence, or not?

if it was, then life also arose from the environment set up by this intelligence.

Forget about the 'if it was' part. If we can't prove the first part of your sentence, then the second part is mere philosophy. If I shagged your mother, then I am your father, not? I clearly am not your father. I need to prove the first set of claims before moving to the second set. ID fails to do this.

6. if there was no creator, then everything exists as random occurences.

So?

7. if a creator exists, by definition, he/she/it posesses supernatural power and intelligence

Yes.

8. this does not mean the creator would have human form, human characteristics,

or care about the human race. it would also mean the creator existed billions of years before life arrived, or before the Biblical God was created by man.

Indeed. It also means He/She/It either didn't care much for dinosaurs, or didn't know what He/She/It was doing at the time.

how could it be any other way?

Oh... there's plenty other scenarios to choose from that doesn't require some form of 'Intelligence'. One of them is, for instance, 'evolution'. And 'evolution' actually answers questions, instead of hiding behind some untestable intelligence.

[pgrmdave]

TRoutMac, since we both agree that ID necessitates the design of atomic structure, we'll start there. If atoms were designed, then they could not have been designed by anything consisting of atoms, even basic, simple photons or energy (keep in mind that matter and energy are simply two facets of the same thing), according to the principles of ID (a thing cannot cause itself to become more complex). Since the designer could not have been anything of this universe (matter and energy) it MUST have come from outside our universe. Since it designed things within our universe, it fits what I described as a god in post 349. I stand by my logical decision that Intelligent Design necessitates the use of a god.

[TRoutMac]

TRoutMac, since we both agree that ID necessitates the design of atomic structure, we'll start there. If atoms were designed, then they could not have been designed by anything consisting of atoms, even basic, simple photons or energy (keep in mind that matter and energy are simply two facets of the same thing), according to the principles of ID (a thing cannot cause itself to become more complex). Since the designer could not have been anything of this universe (matter and energy) it MUST have come from outside our universe. Since it designed things within our universe, it fits what I described as a god in post 349. I stand by my logical decision that Intelligent Design necessitates the use of a god.

 

Dave, please understand… I don't personally disagree with you in that I personally believe, as I've said numerous times, that the Intelligent Designer is God of the Bible. And I personally am convinced that, for the reasons you articulated above, that identifying the designer as God is really the only thing that makes much sense, even though that raises further questions like "who made God?", etc.

 

Nevertheless, while I may disagree with them, there are those who don't share the view you expressed above. I think the logic you used above is largely unassailable, and yet that reasoning is notuniversally accepted and is therefore relegated to the category of "opinion".

 

Regardless of whether Intelligent Design implicitly points toward God of the Bible, it's a robust, well-supported theory with loads of scientific evidence behind it. What ID implies or does not imply about the identity of the designer has no bearing on the validity or "admissability" of the evidence at hand. People opposed to ID simply don't want to be convinced that God exists, and like you, they see the evidence from the ID side leading in that direction and, well, they don't much like it.

 

Unfortunately, the "ideal" of science has this stubborn little prohibition against scientists allowing themselves to be lead around by their personal biases (or even popular opinion) because doing so distorts and contaminates the conclusions drawn from the experimentation and the interpretation of evidence and under those circumstances, science cannot be expected ever to arrive at the truth about anything.

[Boerseun]

Unfortunately, the "ideal" of science has this stubborn little prohibition against scientists allowing themselves to be lead around by their personal biases (or even popular opinion) because doing so distorts and contaminates the conclusions drawn from the experimentation and the interpretation of evidence and under those circumstances, science cannot be expected ever to arrive at the truth about anything.

Either I simply don't understand what you've tried to say here, or you've just single-handedly achieved what ID-opponents here have been trying to do all along, and killed your own argument. You've busted your point in a horrible case of pointicide.

[TRoutMac]

Either I simply don't understand what you've tried to say here, or you've just single-handedly achieved what ID-opponents here have been trying to do all along, and killed your own argument. You've busted your point in a horrible case of pointicide.

 

No, I've busted the evolutionist/anti-ID argument, which is governed by the principle of "methodological naturalism" which is the pre-conceived notion that scientific explanations should be limited to what is "natural". This bias requires you to ignore the genuine possibility of Intelligent Design and forces you to misinterpret the evidence available to us. It forces scientists to "steer" their conclusions away from Intelligent Design even when the evidence would, in any other context, lead their conclusions toward Intelligent Design. Allowing presuppositions to influence outcomes in this way is an affront to science. It runs counter to the aims of science. I actually don't think the stubborn little prohibition against scientists letting their personal biases influence outcomes is "unfortunate". I think it's a good thing, and in my previous comment I was being sarcastic.

 

It is Intelligent Design proponents that give due respect to the limitations of the scientific method, while it is naturalists; evolutionists that appear to have no regard for those limitations.

[infamous]

 

It is Intelligent Design proponents that give due respect to the limitations of the scientific method, while it is naturalists; evolutionists that appear to have no regard for those limitations.

I think you've made a couple rather good points here TRoutMac. There is however a question that I need to ask; I myself believe in evolution because there is good evidence to support the theory, never-the-less, I also believe in Intelligent Design. It all depends upon when and where one believes the Designer finished his creation and allowed evolution to proceed influenced by the natural order.

 

Could you detail how you view this possibility, or do you oppose evolution's roll hands down? And if you do, how does one explain the numerous evidences in support of evolution?

[Erasmus00]

Unfortunately, the "ideal" of science has this stubborn little prohibition against scientists allowing themselves to be lead around by their personal biases (or even popular opinion) because doing so distorts and contaminates the conclusions drawn from the experimentation and the interpretation of evidence and under those circumstances, science cannot be expected ever to arrive at the truth about anything.

 

As has been previously mentioned, science isn't about ALL truth, its about a certain kind of truth. Scientific truth is truth that can be investigated with the scientific method. If you CANNOT investigate something with the scientific method, it is NOT science. That doesn't make it wrong, it makes it NOT science. Keep that in mind.

 

ID proponents say that it is not science because its ideas of irreducible complexity, specified complexity, etc, etc aren't quantifiable at all. They are subjective ideas. Things that some people consider irreducibly complex, others don't. Untill they put scientific rigor to their ideas, they aren't science.

 

Does this mean that you shouldn't be religious because you can't "prove" the existance of God scientifically? No, it means you have to take your religion on faith. Besides, I always thought religion was supposed to be about faith, free will etc. Which is the reason God wouldn't leave footprints. While they are different areas, I would argue that spiritual truth is a subset of truth every bit as important as scientific truth.

-Will

[infamous]

 

Does this mean that you shouldn't be religious because you can't "prove" the existance of God scientifically? No, it means you have to take your religion on faith. Besides, I always thought religion was supposed to be about faith, free will etc. Which is the reason God wouldn't leave footprints. While they are different areas, I would argue that spiritual truth is a subset of truth every bit as important as scientific truth.

-Will

Very nicely put Erasmus00, as good an example of brotherly conduct as I've witnessed for some time now. Let's all take note and try to be as logical and fairminded as this example which Erasmus00 has given us. Remember, it is possible to agree to disagree and still learn from each other.

[TRoutMac]

I think you've made a couple rather good points here TRoutMac. There is however a question that I need to ask; I myself believe in evolution because there is good evidence to support the theory, never-the-less, I also believe in Intelligent Design. It all depends upon when and where one believes the Designer finished his creation and allowed evolution to proceed influenced by the natural order. Could you detail how you view this possibility, or do you oppose evolution's roll hands down? And if you do, how does one explain the numerous evidences in support of evolution?

 

Good question. You're right, Infamous… there is a lot of evidence to support evolution. But my contention, and the contention of many IDers is that the evolution we have indeed tons of evidence for of is not the evolution that's being sold as "science" in our schools. Yes, we're back to the micro/macro thing again.

 

Dog breeding is an excellent example of "evolution", except of course the creation of dog breeds results from "intelligent selection" and not "natural selection". Still, a chihuahua has the same ancestor as a great dane. But these animals are so different, it's hard to imagine they come from the same gene pool. Having said that, note that a chihuahua has all the same parts as a great dane. The basic structure and organization and anatomy is the same, but there are obvious differences in scale, proportions, hair length and coloring, behavior, etc., all within that common "body plan". This illustrates the limits of micro-evolution. Dog breeders have never been able to breed a dog that was, well, not a dog. The range of dog breeds that exist today illustrates the span of "information" available in the canine genome. There is not information, for example, in the canine genome that would allow dog breeders to breed a dog with wings. Or scales instead of skin and fur. Or a dog with opposable thumbs.

 

Selective breeding is the intelligently-guided version of micro-evolution, and we IDers acknowledge that there is an unintelligently guided version of microevolution as well, that functions exactly the same way and has the same limitations except that the selection mechanism is not intelligence, but rather random environmental circumstances which might isolate this group of individuals from that group over a long period of time.

 

The evidence we have for "evolution" does not support macro-evolution, and yet this evidence (for micro-evolution) is used as evidence for macro-evolution via an assumption that macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution on a larger scale.

 

The earlier discussion of the computer program "Tierra" is an excellent illustration of this. We were using software development as an analogy because software is a code much like DNA (or vice-versa) and we were exploring how software could "write itself". I made the claim that a web browser program that you wrote could not "evolve" the additional capability of e-mail. Somebody attempted to "correct" me by trotting out the Tierra example. All very interesting, but I had to ask one simple question: Did the "evolved" Tierra perform any new functions? The answer was a resounding "no". Pgrmdave and Erasmus tried to prove to me that web browser software actually could "evolve" a new capability or function and their "proof" of this was a computer program which, it turned out, did not "evolve" any new function. So, naturally I was not impressed, nor was I "corrected". My point still stands: web browser cannot "evolve" a new function or capability. Intelligence must design a piece of software from the beginning to do everything it is intended to do. Certainly, new versions of software get released with new features… but each of these versions is designed by software engineers. They do not "evolve" from previous versions.

 

I hope this answers your question sufficiently, Infamous.