Define "Intelligent Design"

[Ortho]

Mosher wrote:
“Order implies intelligence because it is not contrary to reason to say so.”

OK. Many things are not contrary to reason. This is a fine topic for philosophy or theology, but it is not part of natural science, nor do I see how it depends on natrual science.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Although order can imply an intelligent designer (ala Paisley’s watch), it is a weak argument for God.

People like the Gnostics can also use such an argument to argue for their side of the story. That the material world, with all its natural evils is proof that their “evil god” of the Old Testament exists. The “obviously” evil material world’s complexity argues for an equally evil intelligent designer, like the Demiurge.

The deists who were part of the “Enlightenment” would be the types to champion ID, an “intelligent designer” that makes the universe like a clock, to freely work of its own inherent design without needing the direct involvment of the designer himself. The fundies just jumped on ID because it implies a deity (of course, God) and sounds like science and so they can push it into school.

We Catholics know that God created the world, we don’t need some lame pseudo-science design argument to back it up.

 

[mosher]

steveandersen:

Ah now I understand

My problem with this is that, while it is perfectly acceptable in Logic to keep a position that is not contrary to reason or for which there is no evidence against, in science you can only hold a view which is supported by evidence regardless or how reasonable it may be…

Therefore the old chestnut that “Science Can’t disprove God” which is true
But science can’t prove God either and must therefore remain silent on the subject.

This is the reason why science can only prove probabilities when philosophy can prove truth.

Ortho:

OK. Many things are not contrary to reason. This is a fine topic for philosophy or theology, but it is not part of natural science, nor do I see how it depends on natrual science.

Because it is thorugh the observation of nature that we see the order that is there. Through induction and deducation one can see the order that exists in the system and then one can make the argument for intelligence through the teleological proof.

ComradeAndrei:

Although order can imply an intelligent designer (ala Paisley’s watch), it is a weak argument for God.

People like the Gnostics can also use such an argument to argue for their side of the story. That the material world, with all its natural evils is proof that their “evil god” of the Old Testament exists. The “obviously” evil material world’s complexity argues for an equally evil intelligent designer, like the Demiurge.

The deists who were part of the “Enlightenment” would be the types to champion ID, an “intelligent designer” that makes the universe like a clock, to freely work of its own inherent design without needing the direct involvment of the designer himself. The fundies just jumped on ID because it implies a deity (of course, God) and sounds like science and so they can push it into school.

We Catholics know that God created the world, we don’t need some lame pseudo-science design argument to back it up.

Actually the teleological argument is intrinsic to our belief and understanding of God. It is neither trite or weak. Remember that as Catholic we reject fideism and all of our held beliefs must be reasonable.

 

[Ortho]

Msher wrote:

“Because it is thorugh the observation of nature that we see the order that is there. Through induction and deducation one can see the order that exists in the system and then one can make the argument for intelligence through the teleological proof.”

I agree. However, such observation was available prior to the advent of modern natural science with its scientific method. Observation is the first step in the scientific method. I don’t think philosohy would be held back by a lack of the other steps in the scientific method.

On the other hand, quantum theory posits all kinds of neat philosophical questions, and it is a product of modern natural science. Can one thing be in two places at the same time? Both philosophy and natural science will deal with that.

Mosher wrote:

“This is the reason why science can only prove probabilities when philosophy can prove truth.”

While philosophy may prove truth, I’d say it would be incorrect to hold philosophy can prove truth in any area. While modern natural science provides probability the Bernouli principle works, I don’t see philosophy having the means to prove it.

Each is a tool suited to its particular task.

 

[steveandersen]

mosher:

This is the reason why science can only prove probabilities when philosophy can prove truth…

well…not to be devils’s avdocate BUT how many schools of philosophy are there?
do they all agree on one truth?

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Actually the teleological argument is intrinsic to our belief and understanding of God. It is neither trite or weak. Remember that as Catholic we reject fideism and all of our held beliefs must be reasonable.

Yes, of course all of our beliefs must be reasonable, but you do see where I’m coming from. I personally think it is a good argument-but I’m already convinced of the existence of God.

I was playing a bit of devil’s advocate, that is how I’ve heard it argued against.

 

[Axion]

Ianjo99:

This all doesn’t sound philosophical to everyone? Where exactly does this fall into the realm of science?

I don’t doubt that God designed the universe, but it seems like a weak argument to say “look, isn’t design obvious?”. That’s hardly a valid reason, I would think.

You seem to be falling into the trap of the Random Creationists by assuming that Intelligent Designers have to have absolute proof for their views to be considered scientific, while Darwinians do not.

BOTH are valid theories if we look at the universe without preconceptions. However those who believe in a random creation PRESUPPOSE that there can be no intelligent creating power. They then Pooh Pooh talk of one as “religion not science”. But they are just as firmly set in their “religion” of a godless universe, viciously attacking anyone who dares to speak against it.

Simply put: Science cannot prove there is no intelligent design. It can suggest that it was possible for life and the universe to develop randomly, assuming that the laws of nature (or even the fact that there are laws of nature) were also randomly generated. In fact there are so many holes in the theory of Random Creation that there is no way it can be validly set up as an unchallengeable dogma. That’s one reason why there is so much defensiveness about the topic in the scientific establishment.

They hoped they had buried God, but He won’t lie down.

 

[Axion]

ComradeAndrei:

Although order can imply an intelligent designer (ala Paisley’s watch), it is a weak argument for God.

It seems quite strong to me…

People like the Gnostics can also use such an argument to argue for their side of the story. That the material world, with all its natural evils is proof that their “evil god” of the Old Testament exists. The “obviously” evil material world’s complexity argues for an equally evil intelligent designer, like the Demiurge.

Scientifically, the Gnostic theory is as valid as that of a Good God, or of no god. It falls down scientifically on the evidence that there is actually good and beauty in the world. Intelligent design is as valid a theory scientifically as no design,

We Catholics know that God created the world, we don’t need some lame pseudo-science design argument to back it up.

It’s not “pseudo-science”. Though that’s what Random Creationists want to label it, so that they don’t have to answer the points it raises.

There seems to be a contradiction between your saying “we know God created he world”, and that intelligent design is “some lame pseudo-science”. How then did God create the world without intelligent design?

That’s the point. Millions disbelieve Christianity because “science” has created an alternative, rationalist Creation Myth that sounds credible. People are taught in schhools and then told on a daily basis that we live in a Random Materialist universe and that this is a “proven” fact.

Actually the random nature of creation is in no way proven. All Darwinians have done is construct a “smoke and mirrors” illusion of proof. They say

1. Big Bang created the Universe (But what went BANG?)
2. Random accumulations of matter created planets and stars. (But how did the stable (not random) physical laws that allow this appear?)
3. A random set of circumstances allowed the chance creation of complex molecules that turned spontaneously into Life. (This is not scientifically observable or repeatable.)
4. The huge range of complex lifeforms arose by individual random beneficial mutations that became stable and were passed on to future populations. (The number of random and beneficial mutations required is staggering. certainly far beyond what is scientifically observable.

 

[Ortho]

Axion wrote:

“Simply put: Science cannot prove there is no intelligent design.”

Exactly. And that which is not falsifiable falls outside the realm of modern natural science.

 

[mosher]

Ortho:

I agree. However, such observation was available prior to the advent of modern natural science with its scientific method. Observation is the first step in the scientific method. I don’t think philosohy would be held back by a lack of the other steps in the scientific method.

On the other hand, quantum theory posits all kinds of neat philosophical questions, and it is a product of modern natural science. Can one thing be in two places at the same time? Both philosophy and natural science will deal with that.

While philosophy may prove truth, I’d say it would be incorrect to hold philosophy can prove truth in any area. While modern natural science provides probability the Bernouli principle works, I don’t see philosophy having the means to prove it.

Each is a tool suited to its particular task.

I understand what you mean but I would submit that the use of the empirical sciences in their currect incarnation are used to firm up the discussion. Of course order is observable without knowing the inner workings of the Kreb Cycle but the understaning of the production of ATP helps to enforce the concept of order.

When it comes to the various aspects of Quantem Physics I agree to a point. However, what I find is that Quantem Theories resonate with traditional realism. An example is the distinction that Quantem Theory makes between the visible universe and the real universe.

Philosophy can investigate all things that the Empirical Sciences investigate but the Empirical Sciences cannot go all the places that Philosophy can go.

steveandersen:

well…not to be devils’s avdocate BUT how many schools of philosophy are there?
do they all agree on one truth?

Very true. I would actually say that more precisely I would default to Logic to deal with truth qua truth which is the language of Philosophy. Philosophy in her various disciplines are investigations of different aspects of reality. It would be analogous to the different schools of the empirical sciences. Sometimes the emphasis placed on each own’s discipline can tend to lead to different conclusions but through further refinement truth is eventually found.

 

[Ortho]

Mosher wrote:

“Philosophy can investigate all things that the Empirical Sciences investigate but the Empirical Sciences cannot go all the places that Philosophy can go.”

I agree. But I would add that there are places where modern natural science can go much further than philosophy. That’s why modern natural science was developed.

 

[mosher]

Ortho:

Mosher wrote:

“Philosophy can investigate all things that the Empirical Sciences investigate but the Empirical Sciences cannot go all the places that Philosophy can go.”

I agree. But I would add that there are places where modern natural science can go much further than philosophy. That’s why modern natural science was developed.

Well it has its purpose. Philosophy is not going to develop a computer. This is why I always say that the Empirical Sciences have their place but we should be careful to not over-inflate its role.

 

[rossum]

1. Big Bang created the Universe (But what went BANG?)

Two branes (yes, that is the correct spelling). See The Myth of the Beginning of Time.

rossum

 

[Ortho]

mosher:

Well it has its purpose. Philosophy is not going to develop a computer. This is why I always say that the Empirical Sciences have their place but we should be careful to not over-inflate its role.

Agree. Neither natural science nor philosophy should be inflated beyond its abilities.

 

[Ianjo99]

Axion:

You seem to be falling into the trap of the Random Creationists by assuming that Intelligent Designers have to have absolute proof for their views to be considered scientific, while Darwinians do not.

BOTH are valid theories if we look at the universe without preconceptions. However those who believe in a random creation PRESUPPOSE that there can be no intelligent creating power. They then Pooh Pooh talk of one as “religion not science”. But they are just as firmly set in their “religion” of a godless universe, viciously attacking anyone who dares to speak against it.

Simply put: Science cannot prove there is no intelligent design. It can suggest that it was possible for life and the universe to develop randomly, assuming that the laws of nature (or even the fact that there are laws of nature) were also randomly generated. In fact there are so many holes in the theory of Random Creation that there is no way it can be validly set up as an unchallengeable dogma. That’s one reason why there is so much defensiveness about the topic in the scientific establishment.

They hoped they had buried God, but He won’t lie down.

I’m not arguing about the beginning of the universe, I’m arguing that this is not science.

How I can prove Intelligent Design falsifiable?
How do you even scientifically define “intelligence”?
Aside from the “apparent” design that people see, what other evidence is there for “Intelligent Design”? (bonus points for empirical evidence)

My point is not to argue against Intelligent Design, but question why you guys are so diehard to put it in the realm of science. Whether something was designed or not sounds so much like a philosophical question.

The reason science is against this “theory” is that it is invading what has been for centuries been seen as a grounded thing (science). Not that all science is without sides or bias, because it is and has always been. But by imbuing science with philosophy and pseudo-theology, it only serves as a backward step for the ultimate goal of making science as non-biased as possible.

Another reason that scientists normally detest theories such as these is that the majority of people fighting for this are just creationists who found another vehicle to spread their message.

Also, quick footnote. I probably would be considered a person who believes in Intelligent Design inasmuch as God created everything through the laws he established. But that has no impact as to what I think should be accepted as science or taught in a science classroom.

God Bless,

Ian

 

[steveandersen]

Axion:

…It’s not “pseudo-science”.

Well it certainly walks and quacks like pseudo-science

Axion:

Though that’s what Random Creationists want to label it, so that they don’t have to answer the points it raises.

What is a random creationist?

Axion:

There seems to be a contradiction between your saying “we know God created he world”, and that intelligent design is “some lame pseudo-science”. How then did God create the world without intelligent design?

Yes we know God created the world but that is an article of faith.

I can’t measure it, I can’t falsify it, and I can’t quantify it, so therefore I can’t put it forth in a science class

Axion:

…That’s the point. Millions disbelieve Christianity because “science” has created an alternative, rationalist Creation Myth that sounds credible. People are taught in schhools and then told on a daily basis that we live in a Random Materialist universe and that this is a “proven” fact.

What part of the theory do you feel is not sufficiently supported by the preponderance of the evidence?

Axion:

Actually the random nature of creation is in no way proven. All Darwinians have done is construct a “smoke and mirrors” illusion of proof. They say

1. Big Bang created the Universe (But what went BANG?)

What does that have to do with evolution?
Evolution says nothing about the big bang

Axion:

1. Random accumulations of matter created planets and stars. (But how did the stable (not random) physical laws that allow this appear?)

What does that have to do with evolution?
Evolution says nothing about the stellar formation or the laws of physics

Axion:

1. A random set of circumstances allowed the chance creation of complex molecules that turned spontaneously into Life. (This is not scientifically observable or repeatable.)

What does that have to do with evolution?
Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis

Axion:

1. The huge range of complex lifeforms arose by individual random beneficial mutations that became stable and were passed on to future populations. (The number of random and beneficial mutations required is staggering. certainly far beyond what is scientifically observable.

Why do anti-evolutionist keep mentioning “random” as if it is a bad word?
(1) The process is not truly random. It is deterministic.
(2) If it is chance and randomness that offends you; what is the difference between the random events evolved with evolution as compared to the random chance associated with conception? After all, probability of life is far higher than the probability of you or me as individuals.
(3) Mutations are only one part of the process. Natural variation, selection pressures, and plain old genetic drift also play a role. Observable rates of mutations are not necessarily a limiting factor.
(4) What is a beneficial mutation? Something that is a benefit in one environment could be a detriment or neutral in another. Once again, observable rates of mutations are not necessarily a limiting factor.

 

[zian]

rossum:

Two branes (yes, that is the correct spelling). See The Myth of the Beginning of Time.

rossum

So can we rewrite the Tinman’s song from the Wizard of Oz?

If I only had a brane …

 

[mosher]

Ianjo99:

I’m not arguing about the beginning of the universe, I’m arguing that this is not science.

How I can prove Intelligent Design falsifiable?
How do you even scientifically define “intelligence”?
Aside from the “apparent” design that people see, what other evidence is there for “Intelligent Design”? (bonus points for empirical evidence)

My point is not to argue against Intelligent Design, but question why you guys are so diehard to put it in the realm of science. Whether something was designed or not sounds so much like a philosophical question.

The reason science is against this “theory” is that it is invading what has been for centuries been seen as a grounded thing (science). Not that all science is without sides or bias, because it is and has always been. But by imbuing science with philosophy and pseudo-theology, it only serves as a backward step for the ultimate goal of making science as non-biased as possible.

Another reason that scientists normally detest theories such as these is that the majority of people fighting for this are just creationists who found another vehicle to spread their message.

Also, quick footnote. I probably would be considered a person who believes in Intelligent Design inasmuch as God created everything through the laws he established. But that has no impact as to what I think should be accepted as science or taught in a science classroom.

God Bless,

Ian

Because philosophy is a science. Empirical sciences do not have a monopoly of the term science. The narrow definition of science being equated to empiricisim is an aboration of termonology.

 

[Ortho]

mosher:

Because philosophy is a science. Empirical sciences do not have a monopoly of the term science. The narrow definition of science being equated to empiricisim is an aboration of termonology.

Modern usage equates science with modern natural sciance. That’s how the word is used in everyday usage. There was a time when this was not the case, but language is a living thing and changes with time.

However, in the interests of clarity, I’d suggest using the term “modern natural science.” Otherwise people will tell us theology is the queen of all sciences and deserves to be taught in chemistry class.

 

[steveandersen]

mosher:

Because philosophy is a science.

Perhaps maybe a soft science…a very soft science

mosher:

Empirical sciences do not have a monopoly of the term science. The narrow definition of science being equated to empiricisim is an aboration of termonology.

IIRC empirical studies predate science and, while fine in themselves, lack the systematic rigor of modern science which not only observes and collects empirical data but also develops a explanation for the observations.