ID is not a valid scientific hypothesis, so ID should not be taught in science class

[ricmat]

Do you really agree with this article? It says that ID was deliberately (implied rightly) snubbed by the Vatican in the conference for being a conflation of science and religion. It says we should teach science in science class, which means teaching Darwinism, but do not teach that Darwisms is disproof of religion, which pretty much no one claims it to be.

Based on every article I’ve read on this conference including this one, the Catholic Church opposes the ID movement to have ID taught in schools and supports Darwinism theory as the currently prevailing science…

Best,
Leela

The conference mentioned in the article was funded by the Templeton Foundation, not the Vatican, not the Catholic Church. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

 

[buffalo]

This is a way of defining or measuring specified complexity, but it has nothing to do with distinguishing what is designed from what is not designed. So there is no testable hypothesis here.

This whole ID CSI business starts with the assumption that high levels of CSI only occur in things that are designed, which is really the question at hand, isn’t it? Is it possible for nature to evolve complex specificity? That’s the question. The method of ID that you describe is to assume the answer to this question is “no,” only intelligently designed things have specified complexity. But how do we know that? Isn’t the whole debate between Darwinism and ID about whether or not specified complexity can emerge through natural processes? So your premise, which is that only designed things have specified complexity, is as questionable as your conclusion, which is that some things in nature are intelligently designed. This is an example of the logical fallacy called “begging the question.”

Best,
Leela

Say you see something with specified complexity. It leaves you with two choices - design or evolution? But we know the monitor was designed. What distinguishes that from specified complexity?

 

[Leela]

Religion… based on truth? What is the reason for doing science? A way to while away the hours between life and death? Most science is about getting out product and bringing in profits, whether it’s new drugs, chemicals for industry or devices to make our lives lazier.

Nope. People, religious and not, need to realize that our lives are not our own. That teachers who teach “science” are only part of the picture. When the kids go home, they need the bread of Life and the Water of life. Man does not live by bread alone.

But the fear here is the hatred of God and the fear of the whisper of God. A word that if a student heard it, might lead to God.

So, while they continue to kick the Ten Commandments out of “public” buildings and tear down Crosses, they are at war with God. ‘Keep your God out of my science classroom. Keep him in your Church building and don’t you dare mention His name in public.’

Science is just people observing, researching and publishing, followed by making product and making money. This life ends in corruption of the body and we will take nothing with us when we die. Nothing.

So put on incorruption. Set your heart and mind on God. And remember, science is meant to be a servant to man, not his Lord.

It sounds like you would prefer if there were no wall of separation between Church and state. The problem for you might be, if we decide that the government should endorse a religion, which religion should it be? If it is not your religion, you probably wouldn’t want it taught in your children’s schools. So be careful what you wish for. You might end up being the one who says “keep Allah out of my kid’s science class!” or “stop errecting monuments of Joseph Smith on my dime!”

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Say you see something with specified complexity. It leaves you with two choices - design or evolution? But we know the monitor was designed. What distinguishes that from specified complexity?

I don’t understand. Distinguishes what? Doesn’t a monitor have specified complexity?

I accept that designed things have specified complexity, but the issue is, why can’t something that is NOT designed ALSO have specified complexity? It is the premise of ID that things that are not designed cannot have specified complexity, but this is exactly what they need to demonstrate. This is just question-begging.

Best,
Leela

 

[edwest2]

It sounds like you would prefer if there were no wall of separation between Church and state. The problem for you might be, if we decide that the government should endorse a religion, which religion should it be? If it is not your religion, you probably wouldn’t want it taught in your children’s schools. So be careful what you wish for. You might end up being the one who says “keep Allah out of my kid’s science class!” or “stop errecting monuments of Joseph Smith on my dime!”

Best,
Leela

Leela,

This is a Catholic forum. This issue is not about politics or forcing God into a classroom.

I am telling everyone who will listen about Jesus Christ on a Catholic forum because I know nonCatholics read these posts.

I am speaking to you as a person, not as a political advocate. God is required to be spoken of, especially here.

Intelligent Design is science, because the computer you are working on did not create itself. Because the tree outside your window did not create itself. You may wish to obscure those ideas or diminish them, but they are true. Only an intelligence can produce purposeful artifacts.

Church and state? Try to look at the whole person who consists of knowledge and mind but also spirit. The whole person is much more than his or her science education.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Leela]

Leela,

This is a Catholic forum. This issue is not about politics or forcing God into a classroom.

I am telling everyone who will listen about Jesus Christ on a Catholic forum because I know nonCatholics read these posts.

I am speaking to you as a person, not as a political advocate. God is required to be spoken of, especially here.

Intelligent Design is science, because the computer you are working on did not create itself. Because the tree outside your window did not create itself. You may wish to obscure those ideas or diminish them, but they are true. Only an intelligence can produce purposeful artifacts.

Church and state? Try to look at the whole person who consists of knowledge and mind but also spirit. The whole person is much more than his or her science education.

Peace,
Ed

Hi Ed,

I must have misunderstood. When you said this:

“So, while they continue to kick the Ten Commandments out of “public” buildings and tear down Crosses, they are at war with God. ‘Keep your God out of my science classroom. Keep him in your Church building and don’t you dare mention His name in public.’”

I though that you meant that the ten commandments should be in public buildings and God should be in science classrooms.

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela
*
I though that you meant that the ten commandments should be in public buildings and God should be in science classrooms.*

I think he said that Intelligent Design should be in the science classroom (see post # 185) … there’s a difference. Don’t go hysterical on us.

 

[buffalo]

Leela
*
I though that you meant that the ten commandments should be in public buildings and God should be in science classrooms.*

I think he said that Intelligent Design should be in the science classroom (see post # 185) … there’s a difference. Don’t go hysterical on us.

Bottom line - Since God is truth, and we want our kids to learn truth, then He already is present in the public school in some form. Again, empirical science in science class and teach them metaphysics and philosophy. When you actively deny children truth that smacks of an agenda.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela
*
I accept that designed things have specified complexity, but the issue is, why can’t something that is NOT designed ALSO have specified complexity? It is the premise of ID that things that are not designed cannot have specified complexity, but this is exactly what they need to demonstrate. This is just question-begging.*

You raise an interesting point. Can you name something “something that is NOT designed ALSO having specified complexity”? I can’t. Again, I refer you to the quote from Jefferson, where he sees designed complexities everywhere.

Thank you

“I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and infinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, the generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos.”

 

[lavalamp]

I don’t understand. Distinguishes what? Doesn’t a monitor have specified complexity?

I accept that designed things have specified complexity, but the issue is, why can’t something that is NOT designed ALSO have specified complexity? It is the premise of ID that things that are not designed cannot have specified complexity, but this is exactly what they need to demonstrate. This is just question-begging.

Best,
Leela

This is what I was getting at in my previous post, #164, that the indicators for specified complexity, or design-like patterns, are statistically unlikely to occur in nature, or rather, are more unlikely than other patterns of similar complexity.

I think a key misunderstanding here is the way in which the universe can be said to be designed. CSI, or design-like patterns can only be defined or identified in relation to the laws of physics. Eg, a a rock shaped like the statue of David is very unlikely to occur naturally because the forces that naturally shape rocks don’t create that kind of shape.

Thus the only way that the universe itself can be said to be designed is by finding CSI in the fundamental equations and constants of physics themselves, not in their products (matter, energy, space-time).

Something that is not designed CAN have specified complexity, it is just insanely unlikely compared to the variety of features of other similar things. Like the statue of David example, although it is possible for a rock to naturally look like the statue of David, it is so ridiculously improbable that we conclude it must be designed.

Now it is possible to argue about what the criteria are for complex information to be considered “specified” in a given case, but at that point everything is statistics.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The above being stipulated to, I would at least like moronic science teachers to not delve into what they have limited knowledge of - like theology, religion and philosophy - and work so hard to undermine them. Just teach science.

I’m trying to find a science course that teaches theology. Never saw one, and I’m inclined to think there never was one in a legitimate public school.

Looks like that one’s stuffed with straw.

 

[JDaniel]

I’m trying to find a science course that teaches theology. Never saw one, and I’m inclined to think there never was one in a legitimate public school.

Looks like that one’s stuffed with straw.

Don’t be so silly. I am an ex-science teacher. And, I am an ex-science student. I have witnessed many instances where God and religion were put down by a non-theistic, agenda-driven teacher of science. Granted, my experiences are anecdotal, however, I wonder how many members of this forum have eye-witnessed the same. Not to mention the literature I made mention of.

Anyway, you’re attempting to alter the argument in my position. Nowhere did I even intimate that “theology was being taught in science classes in legitimate public schools.”
That’s just a sham rearrangement of my meaning to try to obscure the truth of my statement. Talk about straw! You have a bushel full.

jd

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I’m trying to find a science course that teaches theology. Never saw one, and I’m inclined to think there never was one in a legitimate public school.

Looks like that one’s stuffed with straw.

Don’t be so silly. I am an ex-science teacher. And, I am an ex-science student. I have witnessed many instances where God and religion were put down by a non-theistic, agenda-driven teacher of science.

Let’s test that idea. Show me a science textbook that denies God, or a public school that has denial of God in the curriculum. It appears that there have been far more agenda-driven theistic teachers who have imposed their ideas on students than atheistic ones. There are far more theistic teachers, after all.

Granted, my experiences are anecdotal, however, I wonder how many members of this forum have eye-witnessed the same. Not to mention the literature I made mention of.

Selective perception, it seems. Show me a school that actively tried to turn children into atheists. I’ll show you some examples of those who tried to make them conform to the administration’s religious beliefs.

Anyway, you’re attempting to alter the argument in my position. Nowhere did I even intimate that “theology was being taught in science classes in legitimate public schools.”

Hmmm…you wrote:

The above being stipulated to, I would at least like moronic science teachers to not delve into what they have limited knowledge of - like theology, religion and philosophy - and work so hard to undermine them. Just teach science.

Sure looks like you did. I guess maybe it’s time we took a look at your examples. Show us.

 

[The_Barbarian]

This is what I was getting at in my previous post, #164, that the indicators for specified complexity, or design-like patterns, are statistically unlikely to occur in nature, or rather, are more unlikely than other patterns of similar complexity.

Unless, of course, natural forces do it. For many years, the giant’s causeway was thought to be designed by some cyclopean race, until it became clear that it only looked designed.

I think a key misunderstanding here is the way in which the universe can be said to be designed. CSI, or design-like patterns can only be defined or identified in relation to the laws of physics. Eg, a a rock shaped like the statue of David is very unlikely to occur naturally because the forces that naturally shape rocks don’t create that kind of shape.

Let’s take the development of the human hand. Is it “designed” that we have five fingers arranged on the end of the hand?

Thus the only way that the universe itself can be said to be designed is by finding CSI in the fundamental equations and constants of physics themselves, not in their products (matter, energy, space-time).

Why couldn’t it just be created by an omnipotent God, who simply knew what would work, without any designing at all?

 

[Leela]

Leela
*
I accept that designed things have specified complexity, but the issue is, why can’t something that is NOT designed ALSO have specified complexity? It is the premise of ID that things that are not designed cannot have specified complexity, but this is exactly what they need to demonstrate. This is just question-begging.*

You raise an interesting point. Can you name something “something that is NOT designed ALSO having specified complexity”? I can’t. Again, I refer you to the quote from Jefferson, where he sees designed complexities everywhere.

Thank you

Anyone who accepts evolutionary theory would say that biological entities are not designed but do have specified complexity, and that Darwinism explains how specified complexity can emerge woithout design. ID starts with the assumption that specified complexity cannot occur in nature, but that is exactly what they need to demonstrate. IDers using CSI to make their case have have assumed that their conclusion is true as an initial premise.

Best,
Leela

 

[buffalo]

I’m trying to find a science course that teaches theology. Never saw one, and I’m inclined to think there never was one in a legitimate public school.

Looks like that one’s stuffed with straw.

You are not living in the “real world” if you think science teachers will not answer questions from students. They will answer from their own philosophical bias. You cannot be serious here.

 

[buffalo]

Unless, of course, natural forces do it. For many years, the giant’s causeway was thought to be designed by some cyclopean race, until it became clear that it only looked designed.

Let’s take the development of the human hand. Is it “designed” that we have five fingers arranged on the end of the hand?

Why couldn’t it just be created by an omnipotent God, who simply knew what would work, without any designing at all?

Maybe it is time for some definitions clarity.

What does created mean?

What does designed mean?

 

[Leela]

This is what I was getting at in my previous post, #164, that the indicators for specified complexity, or design-like patterns, are statistically unlikely to occur in nature, or rather, are more unlikely than other patterns of similar complexity.

I think a key misunderstanding here is the way in which the universe can be said to be designed. CSI, or design-like patterns can only be defined or identified in relation to the laws of physics. Eg, a a rock shaped like the statue of David is very unlikely to occur naturally because the forces that naturally shape rocks don’t create that kind of shape.

Thus the only way that the universe itself can be said to be designed is by finding CSI in the fundamental equations and constants of physics themselves, not in their products (matter, energy, space-time).

Something that is not designed CAN have specified complexity, it is just insanely unlikely compared to the variety of features of other similar things. Like the statue of David example, although it is possible for a rock to naturally look like the statue of David, it is so ridiculously improbable that we conclude it must be designed.

Now it is possible to argue about what the criteria are for complex information to be considered “specified” in a given case, but at that point everything is statistics.

I actually have a graduate degree in statistics. There is a big problem with the above in the interpretation of the probabilities involved. If evolutionary theory is correct, then what we observe are the winners of the evolutionary lottery. It is always unlikely that a given person will win the lottery, yet we know that someone will win. And after the fact, it would be pretty silly to look at the winner and say to him, “the chances of you actually having the right lottery number is so small that you must not have actually won” or that he actually must have had some supernatural guidance in picking the number he picked. For this reason, in statistical test, we never use the data that we used to form a hypothesis as evidence in support of our hypothesis. To test our hypothesis, we need to get new data. We need to predict what wethink we will observe and then see if our data is consistent or insistent with our hypothesis.

To give another example, suppose I flip a coin 20 times and get a particular string of heads and tails. I tell you what string I got, and you tell me that I must be lieing because the probability of getting that particular string of heads and tails is less than 1 in a million. But the probability of getting ANY particular string would be exactly the same. So probabilities like this computed after the fact simply can’t help you answer the question of whether my string was actually flipped (nature) or made up (design).

In your example of comparing the statue of David and a rock, we have the same problem. Just as it would be astronomically unlikely that a rock would naturally form in the shape o David (or that a water stain on your ceiling would resemble the Holy Virgin), it is just as astronomically unlikely that any rock would occur naturally to be exactly the way it is. Yet there is the rock.

Best,
Leela

 

[matahari]

When you reject the notion of a creator God then there is a vacuum which is usually filled with the phrase "Create your own reality ". This seems to be the situation - a mass rejection of revealed truth in favour of fairy tales - billions of years, big bang and school children being indoctrinated to reject the truth of the Scriptures. Science has limitations . Science can describe life but it certainly cannot explain life. Thats already been done in the Bible - God’s letter to his children . And what a wonderful book that is - too sublime, too complex, too powerful to be the product of a man’s mind.As relevant today as when it was written. Best wishes M

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Antony Flew, world famous atheist who recently repudiated atheism, in his latest book makes the following remark in the chapter that considers whether life could have evolved by chance. (God and Philosophy was the 1966 book in which he had presented all his arguments against the existence of God.)

From There is a God 2007 (p123),

“In my introduction to God and Philosophy, I said, ‘I am myself delighted to be assured by biological-scientist friends that proto-biologists are now well able to produce theories of the evolution of the first living matter and that several of these theories are consistent with all the so-far-confirmed scientific evidence.’ But to this I must add the caveat that the latest work I have seen shows that the present physicist’s view of the age of the universe gives too little time for these theories of abiogenesis to get the job done.”