Intelligent design

[TRoutMac]

When you throw a stone up into the air, it comes down. Whether you like it or not. Our lives might have meaning, or it might have not. Whether you like it or not. Whatever the outcome will be, doesn't depend on whether you want your life to have any meaning or not. Let's say, for a moment, that your life is indeed totally and utterly meaningless. And that you don't like it. Will it change the fact? No.

 

Agreed. And likewise, if our lives are given a larger meaning and purpose by some transcendant entity, then our belief to the contrary will not change that. We agree, it would appear, that truth is truth whether you like it or not.

 

When ID says (like Trout did a few posts ago) that ID is better because 'evolution' says our lives are meaningless, it will not change one single iota of the truth.

 

Again, truth is truth regardless of what you or I happen to believe. Said another way, it's possible to be "sincere" in your beliefs, but wrong as well. Now, I didn't say that ID was "better" because evolution says our lives are meaningless, I just said that of the two, the strict interpretation of Intelligent Design makes less of a religious statement than evolution does because a) it leaves the identity of the Designer open and :friday: it permits either belief regarding whether or not we have a larger purpose.

 

ID is stringing the guitar of human emotions, and contributes zip, zero, nada, in terms of scientific inquiry and truth.

 

Nothing emotional at all about it, Boerseun. Just plain-old observation and rational conclusions. Cold as ice.

 

Believe ID if you think it'll make you sleep better at night. Don't expect more than a good night's rest, though.

 

I'll believe ID because it makes rational sense. And I'll reject (macro)evolution because it makes no sense whatsoever, and has no evidence to support it.

 

Trout, please anser my post this time. I can't understand why you've been ignoring my posts recently. Cutting close to the bone, or what?

 

Sorry if I missed a post or two. Understand that almost singlehandedly I am fielding challenges from you, Erasmus, pgrmdave, Buffy, Turtle, Rocky and a couple of others. (although Buffy and Turtle appear to have abandoned the discussion of late) So, forgive me if a few posts slip through the cracks.

[pgrmdave]

Intelligent Design makes less of a religious statement than evolution does because a) it leaves the identity of the Designer

 

But it forces a belief in a designer, by your own admission, it MUST be a god. That to me is a religious statement, in fact, a pretty obvious one.

[pgrmdave]

However, a proper understanding of the Intelligent Designer would lead one to conclude that the Intelligent Designer, by virtue of the contention that "It" has the knowledge and power to design and create the universe and all of its laws, has the knowledge and power to suspend those laws.

 

The problem with this is, by this reasoning, there is nothing at all which can counter God, because God made it that way. The earth can be as young as you want, carbon dating and fossils mean nothing because God made it that way. No science can be necessarily known to be true because God can change the laws of physics at will.

[Edge]

TRoutMac, now that ID won on Kansas. What is a teacher supposed to answer if a student asks who was the designer?

[TRoutMac]

The problem with this is, by this reasoning, there is nothing at all which can counter God, because God made it that way. The earth can be as young as you want, carbon dating and fossils mean nothing because God made it that way.

 

I really don't understand what "problem" you think this creates. I don't think that carbon dating and fossils "mean nothing". I just don't think they mean what you think they mean. For example, last March a T-rex fossil was found which, according to evolutionist paleontologists, is 65 million years old. Funny thing was, that they broke the femur and discovered soft tissues; blood vessels, blood cells, other soft, fibrous tissue inside the fossilized bone all of which failed to fossilize completely after a mere 65 million years. Rather than question the 65 million year age given to T-rex fossils generally, they chose instead to question the idea that soft tissues should not be present in a 65 million year old fossil.

 

Now, I dunno which is correct… my point here is not to argue over the age of T-rex fossils. My point is that either the age given to T-rex fossils in general is incorrect (and by quite a bit) OR soft tissues actually can survive fossilization over 65 million years. But from what I've read, the scientists who discovered this were, to put it mildly, "surprised" to find soft tissues in a 65 million year old fossil. Bottom line is, fossil evidence has to be interpreted and people interprety fossil evidence differently based on their presuppositions. Fossils mean something alright… but I'm not at all convinced that we really know what they mean apart from the obvious conclusions we all can agree on: At some point in history, dinosaurs did exist.

 

No science can be necessarily known to be true because God can change the laws of physics at will.

 

It's my understanding that no science can be really known to be "absolutely" true in any case. That's science. Never-ending learning, always waiting for the next piece of data that might change something that we thought was carved in stone, thought we understood. Witness: the soft tissues in a 65 million year old fossil.

 

Supposing for a moment that God is the Intelligent Designer, I suppose He could change the laws of physics… if He created them, then he could certainly alter them. But this possibility should not weigh on the question of whether or not life was intelligently designed. To suggest it should is like rejecting the existence of aliens visiting the Earth on the basis that they might be up to no good. It's not based on objective observations, but rather is based on your subjective fear of what the Intelligent Designer might or might not do.

[TRoutMac]

TRoutMac, now that ID won on Kansas. What is a teacher supposed to answer if a student asks who was the designer?

 

Edge, you've asked some good questions and appear to be reasonably open-minded about this subject, so understand I mean no offense here. But I'm frankly incredulous at how now two of you on this forum have claimed that I.D. has won in Kansas. I'm completely dumbfounded as to how you could possibly come away with this idea. Intelligent Design was not the issue in Kansas. Again, this is not a matter of opinion, it is fact. The decision in Kansas will not require or even allow the teaching of Intelligent Design. The decision in Kansas merely says that scientific strengths and weaknesses be taught in science class, where previously the scientific weaknesses were hidden from students. That's the extent of it, and the article that Rocky posted earlier today said as much.

 

So, the answer to your question, even though it is based on a false premise, is simply that an Intelligent Designer won't be any more part of the curriculum now than it was previously. Students will learn that there are legitimate scientific problems with Darwinian evolution, and they will learn that there are scientific strengths as well. Simple as that.

 

Now, looking forward to a time when I.D. might be taught in schools, my own personal opinion is that when a teacher is asked that question, they ought to say something like, "Well, we don't really know for sure, because there's really no way to determine that scientifically. I suggest that you ask your parents what they think."

 

That response respects the limits of Intelligent Design theory, it respects the limits of scientific exploration and it respects parents' rights to govern what their children believe or don't believe regarding religion, God, etc.

[Edge]

Ok, if it's about the doubts in evolution then it's OK with me. Maybe I got confused with the title of the news that said that ID won. As I said, I do not see a big problem, just that it may arise confusions in the subject.

 

I think that yes, the doubts in evolution should be mentioned, at least. Not to tell that students that "macroevolution" is a fact. I just thought that the mentioning of an intelligent designer would be taught as well... so, my mistake.

 

Kudos for your patience in this subject, by the way.

[TRoutMac]

Ok, if it's about the doubts in evolution then it's OK with me. Maybe I got confused with the title of the news that said that ID won. As I said, I do not see a big problem, just that it may arise confusions in the subject.

 

Thank you, Edge. Sorry if I sounded a bit irritated. I'm sure the media is doing everything they can to distort and misreport and that's certainly not your fault.

 

I think it's amazing that there could be any debate about whether the scientific weaknesses should be taught. Why on Earth would anyone want to not teach them? What are they afraid of? Could it really be a good idea to hide the weaknesses of any scientific theory from our kids? Don't they deserve to hear both sides? (strengths and weaknesses) On what basis do they not deserve to hear both sides?

 

Of course, these are questions directed more at others on this forum, not so much you, Edge, since you've already expressed a level of agreement.

 

Thanks again.

[GAHD]

By the same token, If ID were taught, it's weaknesses should be taught as well. What are those weaknesses TRout?

[TRoutMac]

But it forces a belief in a designer, by your own admission, it MUST be a god. That to me is a religious statement, in fact, a pretty obvious one.

 

It doesn't "force" anything, Dave. The evidence of ID leads one to conclude that there is a designer. That, in and of itself is not a religious statement.

 

If explaining certain kinds of evidence by reference to an Intelligent Designer is making a religious statement, then I would be making a religious statement if I tell you I think the Rosetta Stone was the result of Intelligent Design. And how ridiculous would that be?

 

No, concluding from the evidence that there is an Intelligent Designer does not make a religious statement. Claiming that the Intelligent Designer is God most definitely is a religious statement. This is why proponents of Intelligent Design do not make an issue of the Designer's identity.

[TRoutMac]

By the same token, If ID were taught, it's weaknesses should be taught as well. What are those weaknesses TRout?

 

Agreed. If there are weaknesses to the I.D. theory, present them alongside the strengths. If there are weaknesses; if there are good reasons to reject I.D. theory based on hard evidence, then those weaknesses should not be hidden from students.

 

What would be weaknesses? You tell me, Gahd. I am only aware of the spurious, vacuous arguments against ID offered by the ID bashers like "It's religion" and "It's not 'testable'" and all of that nonsense which I've dealt with at length during this discussion. I am not aware of any weaknesses in I.D. that are analogous to the weaknesses we find in the theory of macro-evolution.

 

Regardless, I must emphasize again… if there are weaknesses in ID theory, do not hide them from students.

 

At any rate, I'm glad to hear that you agree that scientific weaknesses of evolution should not be hidden from students.

[GAHD]

"it's not testable" good, same thing with mac. evo. apparently. That is a weakness.

 

"It's based purely on subjective evidence" might be another weakness. I ask you about the weakness' because you are the main person here who 'knows' the theory; thus you should by your own logic know what is wrong with it too, weather you beleive it or not.

[TRoutMac]

"it's not testable" good, same thing with mac. evo. apparently. That is a weakness.

 

Once again, Intelligent Design is testable. We demonstrate this constantly in the field of archeology, for one. Now, some of you seem gripped by the notion that somehow testing for Intelligent Design in this context is somehow different from testing for Intelligent Design in that context. In the context of the Rosetta Stone, Stonehenge, Nazca Lines and Crop Circles you are quite confident that Intelligent Design is testable. But the moment you move into the context of origin of life, where the Designer cannot be human, you suddenly adopt the stubborn stance that Intelligent Design is not "testable". This is particularly odd, since most of you would probably advocate that the universe is chock-full of intelligent designers who are not human and might commute in a flying saucer.

 

The fact remains… either Intelligent Design is testable in every context, or it's not testable in any context. And if it's not testable in any context, then the Rosetta Stone, Stonehenge, Nazca Lines and crop circles are all the result of random, undirected forces of nature. We cannot attribute them to Intelligent Design because we didn't actually see Intelligent Designers at work and there's no way to test for Intelligent Design.

 

"It's based purely on subjective evidence" might be another weakness. I ask you about the weakness' because you are the main person here who 'knows' the theory; thus you should by your own logic know what is wrong with it too, weather you beleive it or not.

 

"Based purely on subjective evidence" is just another way to say "not testable", since a theory which is not testable might be held to regardless of the absence of objective proof, which makes it "subjective". A personal belief held in spite of the lack of objective, empirical evidence, not measurable against any objective standard.

 

I know the objections to Intelligent Design, but those objections to not equate to "weaknesses". To qualify as a "weakness" you must show me how Intelligent Design fails its tests. For example, can you show me that complex specified information can result from unintelligent causes? No, you cannot. Again, I am not aware of any good arguments, based on evidence, that Intelligent Design is not a valid theory. I only know of reasons why some people "don't like" the theory.

[Southtown]

The [Kansas] decision requires that the scientific weaknesses of evolution be taught alongside the scientific strengths.

I can't believe it took a whole movement to accomplish this.

[Erasmus00]

The fact remains… either Intelligent Design is testable in every context, or it's not testable in any context.

 

It's this all or nothing mentality that really messes up your logic. There are a lot of in between cases. Consider the shrub that spells a word that you like to use. Now, if you let that overgrow for a few years, and come back, it'll look sort of like the word, but considerably more natural too. It won't be immediately obvious wether it was designed or natural. Most of the criteria that archeologists use to identify things as designed are things like "written in a known lnaguage." A test that clearly doesn't apply to say, the laws of gravity.

 

If you think design is always testable, what are some criteria of things that are designed? How can I quantify it? If I have some object in a box, and I want to open my box, perform tests on it to determine design, how would I do it? Irreducible complexity and specified information are too attempts to quantify design, but the deffinitions are subjective, with not specifics and far from precise.

 

For example, can you show me that complex specified information can result from unintelligent causes? No, you cannot.

 

Only because no one has given a precise mathematical description of what complex, specified information is. I happen to think the recording of history made in glacial ice cores is quite complex, and I don't know any way to prove it wasn't specified.

-Will

[pgrmdave]

For example, can you show me that complex specified information can result from unintelligent causes? No, you cannot.

 

This is circular logic - you say that complex information must come from a designer, so when you are faced with complex information you say there must have been a designer. I think that life was not designed, and thus would be complex specified information from an unintelligent cause, but you claim it's not possible because complex information needs to come from an intelligent cause. You won't accept any arguments against it.

[TRoutMac]

This is circular logic - you say that complex information must come from a designer, so when you are faced with complex information you say there must have been a designer. I think that life was not designed, and thus would be complex specified information from an unintelligent cause, but you claim it's not possible because complex information needs to come from an intelligent cause. You won't accept any arguments against it.

 

No, actually I say that complex specified information must come from intelligence. There's a difference. You think that life was not designed, but you have to explain, then, why complex specified information is present in life, and also in man-made items which we know to be intelligently designed.

 

Now, you and Erasmus have nevertheless expressed valid questions, which pertain to the definition of "complex specified information", and I will attempt to explain that in a number of ways. I recognize that, while I am certain that complex specified information is not a subjective term and can be defined, it is nonetheless a complex problem with many subtleties.

 

To start, I want to establish something and get your collective agreement, so we know we are on the same page. Keep in mind, I'm not making an argument for or against ID or evolution with the below… I'm just exploring your understanding of the issue of information and probability in general.

 

Let's say I've got a bag of Scrabble letters, exactly one alphabet's worth. And let's say I ask you to choose, blindfolded, three Scrabble letters. I will be generous and allow you to sequence those three letters any way you want (the order that you pick them in does not determine the sequence).

 

The first question is this: What is the probability that the three letters you pick will spell any three-letter word (no acronyms) in the English language? Not really HIGH probability, but actually, they way I've constructed this analogy, not really that LOW, either. Right? Am I close? I mean, there are quite a few three-letter words in the English language. You could pick the letters, A, C and T and those spell the word CAT. We don't need to determine the actual mathematical probability, but I just want a general agreement that it's at least slightly MORE likely that the letters you pick will NOT spell a 3 letter word. Now, if you happen to luck out and spell a three-letter word, you've just produced "information" without using your intelligence, right? In other words, the information arose by chance. Agreed?

 

Okay, now how about another scenario. All the rules are the same except this time, I place a requirement on which word you must spell, and the word I choose is "RUN". Now, has this requirement significantly reduced the probability that you will produce the information I'm asking for without using your intelligence to choose letters? Would you agree that if you chose three letters at random from the bag and those letters happened to be U, R and N, would that not be incredibly fortuitous?