Intelligent Design - What is the strongest evidence for it?

[jimmy85]

And what experiment could falsify the idea that intelligence was behind this? How is an unfalsifiable idea scientific evidence?

Well in my opinion I think that if several unsucceesful big bang have happened before , then they would have left a lot of energy and matter before this big bang that created this universe, and that is not likely because that dosent match the theories nor the obesrvations for what I know.
So the inflatory speed of the big bang went into an extremly prescise and perfect way. That can be accounted easily for inteligent design.
If we didnt have that prescition nor that perfect speed of inflation; no star, nor plantes, nor life could have ever been developed.

All that can easily make us think that the creation of the universe wasent happenchance at all.

btw you can also say this dosent justify intelligent design but anyway. one could only get to the conclusion of an inteligent designer throught reason and not through science.

 

[Richard_Powers]

but when I ask how you would do an experiment to prove the multi-universe theory in lieu of fine tuning, you say that this has nothing to do with anything.

I never mentioned the multi-universe and the falsifiability of the multi-universe has nothing to do with whether there is evidence for ID. If you want to discuss evidence for the multi-universe hypothesis you should start another thread.

Note: I am looking for the Truth of the universe, not necessarily a scientific explanation in the traditional sense. You seem more interested only in explanations which fit your definition of science and its limited methods, whether they are true or not.

So how long is Beauty? How much does Justice weigh? What is the reflectivity of Love? I believe that these things exist even though they cannot be measured, or falsified in experiments. Frankly, I don’t care whether or not the existence of a Designer can be extracted from experiments. It just isn’t important. But the Designer exists just as beauty, justice, and love do.

Read the books.

Go back to the OP. I asked about scientific evidence. If don’t want to discuss scientific evidence for ID you are just wasting time in thread. This thread is about ID and scientific evidence. I have no problem with ID being taught in a philosophy class. Do you think ID should be taught in a science class? ID proponents say that ID is science, but there is no scientific evidence for ID so it should not be a part of a science class.

 

[Richard_Powers]

Well in my opinion I think that if several unsucceesful big bang have happened before , then they would have left a lot of energy and matter before this big bang that created this universe, and that is not likely because that dosent match the theories nor the obesrvations for what I know.
So the inflatory speed of the big bang went into an extremly prescise and perfect way. That can be accounted easily for inteligent design.
If we didnt have that prescition nor that perfect speed of inflation; no star, nor plantes, nor life could have ever been developed.

All that can easily make us think that the creation of the universe wasent happenchance at all.

btw you can also say this dosent justify intelligent design but anyway. one could only get to the conclusion of an inteligent designer throught reason and not through science.

This does not in any way address my question about an experiment that could falsify your idea.

 

[jimmy85]

This does not in any way address my question about an experiment that could falsify your idea.

you cant do an experiment that will tell you whethere there is an intelligent designer.
Science cant tell you there is an intelligent designer only reason could tell you that.

 

[john_doran]

I never mentioned the multi-universe and the falsifiability of the multi-universe has nothing to do with whether there is evidence for ID. If you want to discuss evidence for the multi-universe hypothesis you should start another thread.

what difference does it make if you mentioned it or not?

there are theories taught in science classes that are unfalsifiable by any current (and some say future) experimental technology (m-theory, anyone?); what’s good for the goose is good for the gander: if you understand falsifiability as the ultimate solution to the demarcation problem, then anything that fails the test is not science and shouldn’t be taught as such. period.

so. either falsifiability is not a necessary condition for legitimate science, and ID theory is in, or falsifiability *is *a necessary condition, and ID theory is out, and so is m-theory…

take your pick.

being logical is easy. it’s being logical all the way to the bitter end that’s hard…

 

[john_doran]

This does not in any way address my question about an experiment that could falsify your idea.

any experiment that demonstrates on the balance of probabilities that the universe is the product of random events would falsify ID…

easy-peasy.

 

[jimmy85]

Say an example there is an hypotetical miracle.
Science wont tell you it was caused by God, science will only tell you whether the miracle can or cant be explained by our natural laws.
Science and religion are very different, you cant prove spirituals trues with science, only reason and proper understanding can prove spiritual trues.

 

[Richard_Powers]

you cant do an experiment that will tell you whethere there is an intelligent designer.
Science cant tell you there is an intelligent designer only reason could tell you that.

So do you agree ID has no place in a science class?

 

[Richard_Powers]

what difference does it make if you mentioned it or not?

Because this thread is about ID. Not multi-universes.

there are theories taught in science classes that are unfalsifiable by any current (and some say future) experimental technology (m-theory, anyone?); what’s good for the goose is good for the gander: if you understand falsifiability as the ultimate solution to the demarcation problem, then anything that fails the test is not science and shouldn’t be taught as such. period.

What high school class is M-theory taught in? M-theory involves extremely difficult math that is graduate level. Besides you pretty have the difference right there in your post. M-theory is theoretically falsifiable. New technology may be able to test M-theory. ID by its very nature is not even theoretically testable.

so. either falsifiability is not a necessary condition for legitimate science, and ID theory is in, or falsifiability is a necessary condition, and ID theory is out, and so is m-theory…

Any discussion of M-theory will state that it yet to be tested. But unlike ID it is theoretically testable. Here is a link to a Nova episode. The issue of testability is discussed. I doubt you find a scientist that thinks M-theory does not need to be tested.

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

 

[Richard_Powers]

any experiment that demonstrates on the balance of probabilities that the universe is the product of random events would falsify ID…

easy-peasy.

No it would not. A response could that that it was only designed to look random. The Wikipedia article on falsification looks pretty good. Can you give an experiment that could theoretically falsify ID?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Nor can any such experiment tell us anything about the probability that the universe is designed unless you can assign a prior probability to the proposition that the universe is designed. How are you going to do that? Be specific.

 

[Richard_Powers]

Say an example there is an hypotetical miracle.
Science wont tell you it was caused by God, science will only tell you whether the miracle can or cant be explained by our natural laws.
Science and religion are very different, you cant prove spirituals trues with science, only reason and proper understanding can prove spiritual trues.

So is ID science? Does it have any place in a science class?

 

[jimmy85]

So is ID science? Does it have any place in a science class?

yes, only if you take in accoutn science, reason and the posibility for religion. then it could lead somewhere.

on the other hand if you only take in account sciences and skepticsm, we would be talking about soemthing that cannot be ever proved.

 

[Richard_Powers]

yes, only if you take in accoutn science, reason and the posibility for religion. then it could lead somewhere.

on the other hand if you only take in account sciences and skepticsm, we would be talking about soemthing that cannot be ever proved.

I am not sure what you saying exactly, but I think you are saying ID is science. Why do you think it is science? You have not provided a way to theoretically test it (or provided a way to establish the prior probability that the universe was designed). Would ID still be science if cannot be theoretically falsified?

 

[jimmy85]

I am not sure what you saying exactly, but I think you are saying ID is science. Why do you think it is science? You have not provided a way to theoretically test it (or provided a way to establish the prior probability that the universe was designed). Would ID still be science if cannot be theoretically falsified?

frankly I dunno how could science “alone” explain ID, since science cant affirm whether the existens of God is real or not, because that is not what science is about.

In my own opinion I believe ID is about reason. for example: See the beauty of nature, it requiered inteligences in order to be formed and it couldnt have been made by happenchance.

what im saying is that if you intend to prove inteligent design you “must” take in account religion and reason as well otherwise you will be searching for something that cant be proved.

so in my own opinion “ID is more about reason than about science when it comes to determine the existens of an Inteligent designer”,
however in my own opinion I believe science can contribute not to determine whether there is an Interligent designer, but science can add data and not proves. just like the one I quoted from Alan Guth, in that case reason can tell you to consider religion, and to consider an Intelligent designer as well because the inflatiory speed of expansion of the universe was perfect and something perfect cant happen by happenchance for the first time, it requires inteligence and Intelligence requiere the existens of a sort of being that is the owner of that inteligence.

 

[averheyen]

The problem is is that you are asking for scientific evidence for God. There is none.

Peace

Tim

He’s right.

And it only makes sense. There can’t be any, by virtue of what God is.

C.S. Lewis looked at it this way. Science deals with facts. And so it does. It’s what it is good at.

God cannot appear in the universe of his creation as one of the “facts” within, anymore than an architect can appear as one of the “walls” in a house he designed.

 

[MarcoPolo]

This is not evidence for ID.

Of course it is. It is evidence for a complexity that was not formed in increments. Complexity itself is evidence for ID. Not proof, but evidence.

Behe’s work was totally discredited on the Nova documentary. AGain, totally discredited, by the very case you allude to.

With all respect, citing Nova and a judge is hardly conclusive. I didn’t see Nova, but that judge’s remarks were so condescending. If you only look at the statements made by the judge and what the Discovery Institute proposes, one can reasonably see the judge was just advancing political nonsense.

I won’t continune in this thread if it is just going to be political talk. That is minor league stuff. But I would humbly withdraw if that is what the people want.

 

[Richard_Powers]

perfect cant happen by happenchance for the first time, it requires inteligence and Intelligence requiere the existens of a sort of being that is the owner of that inteligence.

How do you know this?

 

[Richard_Powers]

Of course it is. It is evidence for a complexity that was not formed in increments. Complexity itself is evidence for ID. Not proof, but evidence.

No, it only could only show that the specific mechanisms proposed by evolutionary theory cannot explain how certain complex features were developed.

Add to this the fact that many of the features that have been proposed as irreducibly complex have shown to not be irreducibly complex. Blood clotting is a good example.

With all respect, citing Nova and a judge is hardly conclusive. I didn’t see Nova, but that judge’s remarks were so condescending. If you only look at the statements made by the judge and what the Discovery Institute proposes, one can reasonably see the judge was just advancing political nonsense.

How about Behe’s own words where he admits that astrology (not astronomy) is science under the definition of science he uses to define ID as science? Do think astrology is science?

 

[jimmy85]

How do you know this?

It is a posibilty taking in account the fact that perfect stuffs or in other cases very evalorated things require some degree of inteligence, that is the oposite of happenchance. Plus one must be open to consider religion when it comes to an Inteligent designer, that is what the theory of Inteligent design is all about. one must consider religion as well becuase science alone cant prove nor disprove an inteligent designer.

 

[Richard_Powers]

Plus one must be open to consider religion when it comes to an Inteligent designer, that is what the theory of Inteligent design is all about. one must consider religion as well becuase science alone cant prove nor disprove an inteligent designer.

This is not what the major proponents of ID say. They say that ID is science.