Conclusive evidence for Design!

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ID scientists simply look for evidence of design. Design philosophers figure out who it is.
 
Portofino said:
We then would have to ask – as in our own case – what is the mechanism or origin of this intelligence?

Again, I’m not sure this is a question that is meaningful from an I.D. perspective – or is it? It seems that, per ID, intelligence can only be explained in terms of intelligence; it cannot be explained as having arisen from non-intelligence.

So intelligence becomes axiomatic – just like gravity, or time and space.

The only difference – perhaps – is that time and space are measurable (quantifiable), whereas cosmic intelligence is not (except through contemplation of it).
Click to expand...
Thank you for lending your usual insight, Portofino.

As far as I am concerned, and ID proponents would likely agree, to admit the possibility that cosmic intelligence is plausible or, at least, an open question is a reasonable position. It is definitely more reasonable than tying intelligence, derivatively and by presumption, to biochemical processes. The science does not warrant that and a strong case can be made, philosophically, that intelligence could be, as you say, axiomatic and potentially, at least, an ordering principle. There are no grounds for dismissing that possibility except as a dogmatic assertion.
 
Peter_Plato said:
The order of the nucleotide bases in the DNA molecule has no molecular chemical or physical cause. There is no scientific explanation for why the bases line up in the configuration they do, yet that order is precisely what allows the functionality of the cell, the transcription of code that allows reproduction and production of the functional proteins that are essential to life. If science can offer no explanation, then that does open the field somewhat.
Click to expand...
So if there is no current explanation, the field is open for…what, an intelligent designer?

OK, we’ll all go along with it. We haven’t yet discovered a scientifically acceptable natural solution for this particular conundrum, so we’ll all agree that it appears as if it’s been intelligently designed.

There is then an extremely long pause while we all look at each other to see if anyone has any more to say on the matter. There’s a polite cough from Mr. Dembski who says: You know, that Intelligent Designer could be, you know…God. We all nod sagely. A few of us whisper to each other that we just knew he was going to say that. Then, after another long pause, we all start drifting off one by one and carry on doing whatever it was we were doing before.

And the guys who were originally looking for the natural answer go back to the office to continue looking.

What actually changes? Where do you go from this point?
 
Bradski said:
So if there is no current explanation, the field is open for…what, an intelligent designer?

OK, we’ll all go along with it. We haven’t yet discovered a scientifically acceptable natural solution for this particular conundrum, so we’ll all agree that it appears as if it’s been intelligently designed.

There is then an extremely long pause while we all look at each other to see if anyone has any more to say on the matter. There’s a polite cough from Mr. Dembski who says: You know, that Intelligent Designer could be, you know…God. We all nod sagely. A few of us whisper to each other that we just knew he was going to say that. Then, after another long pause, we all start drifting off one by one and carry on doing whatever it was we were doing before.

And the guys who were originally looking for the natural answer go back to the office to continue looking.

What actually changes? Where do you go from this point?
Click to expand...
You allow science and philosophy to go on without prejudice! Is that so hard to understand?

What you don’t do is halt the openness to possible and plausible solutions just because you have a predetermined view of where things should lead. If it turns out to be a natural cause or if it turns out to be a supernatural one, let’s be open to either instead of pursuing one and disqualifying the other by prejudice.
 
wanstronian said:
As most people know, the driving force behind the IDC movement over the last few decades was purely to side-step** the effect of the First Amendment of the US constitution which forbids teaching creationism in school science classes. **The Wedge document unequivocally states that the purpose of the movement is to try and get creationism into schools under the radar, by using a different name and pretending it’s science.
Click to expand...
I hate to burst your bubble, but the First Amendment of the Constitution has nothing to do with that. The text of the First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
This had nothing to do with keeping religion out of the public sphere, and everything to do with keeping government out of religion. This was intended to prevent the government from establishing a state religion and prohibiting the practice of other religions (which was a major reason for the establishment of our country to begin with.)

As comes as a surprise to many secularists, the phrase “separation of Church and State” appears nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It has been taken, completely out of context, from a personal letter of Thomas Jefferson written, ironically, to reassure a Baptist congregation of his support of their religious liberty.

The Constitution prevents the government from meddling in the affairs of religious establishments. It does not forbid the religious beliefs of the masses from influencing public policy.

Regardless of whether or not you believe creationism should be taught in schools (and I’m not saying it should), it is simply wrong to say that it violates the First Amendment. The ACLU has done a fine job of completely distorting the intentions of our Constitution; their aim, of course, being to dismantle it (according to their Soviet-loving pseudo-anarchist founder himself.)

🙂 The more you know.
 
buffalo said:
Your claim is evo does not have an a priori basis?
Click to expand...
No - my claim is that evolution makes predictions, many of which have come true and none of which have been falsified. My claim is that evolutionary theory describes experiments, all of which can be performed independently, and all of which produce results which support the theory. My claim is that evolution has a groundswell of evidence from many different spheres of science, all of which support the theory.

IDC has none of this.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
Click to expand...
That might be why you take the side of science. Most of us take the side of science *because it works.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. **Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. **Richard Lewontin
Click to expand...
This is just self-pity. It’s not that science doesn’t allow the supernatural, it’s just that the supernatural, by definition, cannot be empirically investigated, so it’s not science. It reminds me of that Sid Harris cartoon, with the chalkboard covered in equations, then in the middle it says, “and then a miracle occurs.” If it doesn’t add value, if it has no explanatory power, then it’s outside the remit of science.
Materialism consists of story telling. Do you not read your own literature?
Click to expand...
Don’t be daft. Materialism is a philosophical position. Yes, it contains conjecture - but whaddya know, the conjecture is then investigated scientifically, and either reinforced or dismissed.
What materialistic societies even studied science? How about Islam? :hmmm:
Click to expand...
I call red herring here. Are you saying that science does not assume materialism?
The west led by Catholics brought science to where it is today.
Click to expand...
No - at best they were the originators of natural philosophy, as I have stated. It was brought where it is today by people who had no prior agenda, and followed the evidence to its conclusion, shedding the superstitious nature of its origins along the way. This is diametrically opposed to theism, including IDC, which starts at the conclusion and tries to trace a path of evidence backwards in order to sound convincing.

This is common knowledge, I’m amazed you deny it!
 
wanstronian said:
No - my claim is that evolution makes predictions, many of which have come true and none of which have been falsified. My claim is that evolutionary theory describes experiments, all of which can be performed independently, and all of which produce results which support the theory. My claim is that evolution has a groundswell of evidence from many different spheres of science, all of which support the theory.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand this. Evolution makes predictions? Like what?
 
buffalo said:
Making up a number? The UPB? Do you know how it is calculated?
Click to expand...
I have seen various explanations. Wikipedia has one, for example. Here is another good description. Dembski’s original paper is here, and to be fair he does a good job of dressing it up to sound plausible and scientific. But this is mere artifice.
Show me your UPB calculation.
Click to expand...
I don’t have one - why would I? I’m not in the habit of inventing numbers to try and conjure a scientific-sounding hypothesis out of thin air.
 
Peter_Plato said:
You allow science and philosophy to go on without prejudice! Is that so hard to understand?

What you don’t do is halt the openness to possible and plausible solutions just because you have a predetermined view of where things should lead. If it turns out to be a natural cause or if it turns out to be a supernatural one, let’s be open to either instead of pursuing one and disqualifying the other by prejudice.
Click to expand...
OK, we’re all open. But the question is still…what changes? You can quite happily go on believing that there is an intelligent designer behind everything and you can assume it’s God if you want. And the people who are looking for natural causes will carry on regardless. They don’t stop work because you say you think you’ve got a handle on the ultimate cause.

Do you think it will strengthen people’s faith if there is general agreement that one of the answers might be ID? Do you think there’ll be less atheists?

You can ask me at any time: Is there a God? The answer I give will pretty much be the same every time. I don’t think there is. Not that I know that there isn’t but that I don’t accept any of the evidence for His existence (or any other god for that matter), so I simply don’t believe in Him. You can ask me why we all came to be here and I will say – I don’t know. There’s nothing wrong in admitting that we don’t have all the answers and I certainly don’t.

In the case of ID, people are saying that because we don’t know something, therefore it could be Intelligently Designed. And can we please be honest with each other at this point. We’re not talking about someone pan-galactic intelligence who might leave obelisks lying around now and then. We’re talking about God. So they are saying, we can’t find credible evidence for a natural cause, therefore God did it.

What do you want me to say at this point? I can’t tell you God doesn’t exist, so I can’t tell you that something is not Intelligently Designed by God. All I can tell you is that it appears that we have no natural answer as yet to why some things appear as they do. All I can say, if you ask me why something appears in nature as it does is: I don’t know. That has always been the case and I suspect that it always will be the case.

If Dembski and his mates want to say that they have found compelling evidence that something has been designed by God, I say fair enough. Go for it. Well done. I hope it will comfort to those who believe in God. If it strengthens your faith, then it must be a good thing. If it helps people become more Christ-like in their behaviour to others, then I will not complain. If it makes you a better person, then it is a cause for celebration.

But if he tries to tell me he has found evidence for an Intelligent Designer and that he is not connecting this in any way, shape or form with God, then he is simply insulting not just my intelligence, but yours.
 
Bradski said:
And the guys who were originally looking for the natural answer go back to the office to continue looking.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

And when they find the answer - which they will - they’ll go on checking and rechecking forever, comparing and contrasting and developing as more and more becomes known.

Sarah x 🙂
 
Peter_Plato said:
The order of the nucleotide bases …noise removed…

To answer this post, three key questions need to be addressed.
  1. If faced with the ant situation, could you reasonably avoid positing intelligence as a probable cause for the appearance of the letters? If so, what is a reasonable and sufficient alternative explanation?
Click to expand...
Some intelligence could probably be assumed. But assumption is not fact. To turn this back to you - how would you go about identifying and evaluating the source of the intelligence? How would you confirm that this is due to an intelligence, other than the assertion that “it sure looks that way?”
  1. Is the coding in the DNA molecule less probable than the ant writing? If you think so, demonstrate how.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. But the question is irrelevant.
  1. What is a good scientifically testable explanation for the order of nucleotide bases along the spine of the DNA molecule?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. But the question is irrelevant.

You talk it up well, but your argument seems to consist of “this is terribly complicated, and we don’t have a complete naturalistic explanation for it, THEREFORE INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS REAL!!!” This is known as the argument from ignorance. A lack of explanation in one sphere is not good reason to assert that another hypothesis must be correct. History is full of instances where supernatural phenomena were invoked to explain the unexplained. Then science explained it and there was never anything supernatural involved after all.

So. One can either assume that science will ultimately explain everything. Or one can assume that as science can’t explain x TODAY, it never will. Or, one can take the most sensible approach, which is to cautiously observe that the only method that has ever actually vouchsafed us a single truth about the world is science, and that the most plausible scenario is that if a robust explanation for x is ever put forward, it is almost certain to come from scientific endeavour, not from inventing a pretend scientific theory that just happens to support one’s pre-existing religious beliefs.

How about you provide the full scientific theory of Intelligent Design, to the same detail as you’re asking of me? If there’s a designer, what are the experiments that prove it? What predictions does your theory make? Who or what is the designer? How many designers are there? Who designed the designer(s) [ad infinitum]? When did it/they do their work? How? Why? What would falsify your theory?
 
wanstronian said:
I call red herring here. Are you saying that science does not assume materialism?
Click to expand...
Science does not assume materialism. It does assume a predictable pattern or order to events, but whether the “substance” underneath that order is material in a currently definable sense is not a required presumption. In fact, what matter actually is as a fundamental reality remains an open question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top