Intelligent Design - What is the strongest evidence for it?

[buffalo]

You know nothing about my world view. I have never stated if I do or do not believe in things that cannot be explained by science. I started this thread asking for the best scientific evidence for ID since ID proponents claim that it is science. I challenge you to either back up your statement that I have been suckered into the scientism worldview or admit that this was a dishonest statement and admit that you are a dishonest person.

Thanks orogeny, for the good words.

OK. I will retract the wordview point. But I will issue a worldview challenge. I submit that scientism is a current wordview that many have been suckered into.

 

[TMC]

I think that arguing for ID by referring to the mathematical probability of a past event occuring makes no sense. It misapprehends both probability and evolution, and fails to take into account the inherent observational bias the we experience based on our place in the universe.

It is inherently erroneous to talk about the probability of any past event happening. The probability that a past true event happened is 1 (or if you prefer 100%). Before the event happened there may have been some probability attached to the event, or it may have been compelled as certain because of factors that were not apparent to the observer. But you can’t put a probability on a past event.

This is not mere semantics. Take this example. If I write numbers from 1-1,000,000 on little slips of paper and toss them into the air, what is the chance that I will randomly grab number 12 as they float past? If I try to grab 12 and succeed, that would be remarkable. But if I grab randomly and get 12, I wouldn’t declare 12 God’s will, or say that grabbing 12 is evidence of God’s design. Its just the number I happened to get. It doesn’t make 12 more or less special. Once I have 12 the chance that I have 12 is 1, not 0.000001. It is unremarkable.

To say that it is remarkable that this particular planet developed an atmosphere similarly misapplies probability. It looks at the issue from the wrong side. What is the chance that the planet we live on would have a atmosphere? It is 1, because we could not have developed as we are on another planet. The fact that this planet out of the billions and billions of planets is that one is no more remarkable than the fact the 12 was the number grabbed. It means nothing.

I hope this is not terribly confusing, because it is an important concept in this context. Our observational bias, combined with a misapplication of the probability of future events onto the past creates an impression of design, but it does not in any way prove design.

This gets also to the problem of the God of the Gaps. I believe that in this world-view God is reduced to a force that explains gaps perceived to be created by supposedly improbable past events. But probability is only gauged by the viewpoint of the observer. Some day we may be able to model air currents and bits of paper sufficiently to predict that I would have grabbed number 12. Some day we may learn that these supposedly random past events were forced by rules we don’t understand now. Each time that happens another gap will close. When all the gaps are closed, what happens to the God of the Gaps?

 

[buffalo]

I think that arguing for ID by referring to the mathematical probability of a past event occuring makes no sense. It misapprehends both probability and evolution, and fails to take into account the inherent observational bias the we experience based on our place in the universe.

It is inherently erroneous to talk about the probability of any past event happening. The probability that a past true event happened is 1 (or if you prefer 100%). Before the event happened there may have been some probability attached to the event, or it may have been compelled as certain because of factors that were not apparent to the observer. But you can’t put a probability on a past event.

This is not mere semantics. Take this example. If I write numbers from 1-1,000,000 on little slips of paper and toss them into the air, what is the chance that I will randomly grab number 12 as they float past? If I try to grab 12 and succeed, that would be remarkable. But if I grab randomly and get 12, I wouldn’t declare 12 God’s will, or say that grabbing 12 is evidence of God’s design. Its just the number I happened to get. It doesn’t make 12 more or less special. Once I have 12 the chance that I have 12 is 1, not 0.000001. It is unremarkable.

To say that it is remarkable that this particular planet developed an atmosphere similarly misapplies probability. It looks at the issue from the wrong side. What is the chance that the planet we live on would have a atmosphere? It is 1, because we could not have developed as we are on another planet. The fact that this planet out of the billions and billions of planets is that one is no more remarkable than the fact the 12 was the number grabbed. It means nothing.

I hope this is not terribly confusing, because it is an important concept in this context. Our observational bias, combined with a misapplication of the probability of future events onto the past creates an impression of design, but it does not in any way prove design.

This gets also to the problem of the God of the Gaps. I believe that in this world-view God is reduced to a force that explains gaps perceived to be created by supposedly improbable past events. But probability is only gauged by the viewpoint of the observer. Some day we may be able to model air currents and bits of paper sufficiently to predict that I would have grabbed number 12. Some day we may learn that these supposedly random past events were forced by rules we don’t understand now. Each time that happens another gap will close. When all the gaps are closed, what happens to the God of the Gaps?

If you keep grabbing 12’s it can be quite a differrent situation.
Anthropic coinicidences of which there are many, go back all the way to the instant of creation.

 

[TMC]

If you keep grabbing 12’s it can be quite a differrent situation.
Anthropic coinicidences of which there are many, go back all the way to the instant of creation.

But you don’t keep grabbing twelves!

The point is that the ex post analysis of the probability of something happening that had to happen in order for the observer to even exist is meaningless. It happened already so probabilty is meaningless. The mechanism behind its happening is not apparent, so why and how it happened, and if another outcome was even possible is unknown. The observer must observe it because his existence is predicated on the past event having happened. The observation is required by the existence of the observer. A different observer making a different observation would find it equally remarkable. Its meaningless.

 

[buffalo]

But you don’t keep grabbing twelves!

The point is that the ex post analysis of the probability of something happening that had to happen in order for the observer to even exist is meaningless. It happened already so probabilty is meaningless. The mechanism behind its happening is not apparent, so why and how it happened, and if another outcome was even possible is unknown. The observer must observe it because his existence is predicated on the past event having happened. The observation is required by the existence of the observer. A different observer making a different observation would find it equally remarkable. Its meaningless.

Quantum physics says you cannot know the outcome until you can actually verify it. That is because we are inside the frame of reference. Presumably God is outside the universes’ frame.

Anthropic coincidences that stack up upon each other make the probabilities of chance skyrocket so high it moves you into design.

Quantum physics may be the best argument for ID.

 

[MarcoPolo]

**It has no place in any school science class. If a school wants to offer a course in philosophy or metaphysics, then by all means. **

I’m happy to hear that, but surprised since you said that ID was “garbage.”

 

[ricmat]

The point is that the ex post analysis of the probability of something happening that had to happen in order for the observer to even exist is meaningless.

So, for example, the probability that you would turn out to be male or female cannot be reviewed ex post facto?

Or driving to work today, you have 2 choices of roads to take, and you normally decide by flipping a coin. Today it was tails so you went down route B. And when you got to work, you found that an ultra-terrorist had blown up route A at the exact time you would have been sitting on the route A bridge. So you can no longer say that there was a 50/50 chance of taking route B? The coin flip wasn’t actually a 50/50 proposition? The coin HAD to come up tails?

I don’t buy it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’m happy to hear that, but surprised since you said that ID was “garbage.”

Yeah I figured you weren’t reading me correctly at all. ID is garbage as a “scientific” theory…It is simply not a scientific theory, it is a theological theory. As such, I like it quite well…I do believe that God was the First Actor, the Creator who creates out of nothing everything. I believe God created the laws that govern the universe, how it evolves. I personally believe God doesn’t actively tinker with his creation, but is visible in and through it. He acts within his universe when sentient beings like ourselves open ourselves and allow through free will God to act through us. I can prove exactly zero of this, and I imagine no scientist can or will be able to prove it either. It is my theological belief of how the universe was created.

I believe that God is delighted with sentience, because with sentience the creature actively seeks God, the God who has been waiting for this. I believe God loves my intelligence. I do not believe God created a world in direct contradiction to what our natural senses would lead us to believe. Of course we will continue to learn, things we believe today about science will undoubtedly change. But it will be a building up of knowledge. The pertinent thing is that our senses tell us stuff that is verifiable by testing. None of ID is.