Intelligent Design

[levinas12]

That would take us out of the realm of science (and, as such topics tend to gravitate toward, politics) and back into philosophy (metaphysics), theology, and faith. And it is in these realms, my friend, which are no less significant than science, that I believe Intelligent Design belongs.

I agree that intelligent design belongs in philosophy … the issue has been with us since the pre-Socratics … and it does not always implies a “designer” … for example, Aristotle saw design in nature but for him there was no designer … his God was blissfully unaware of the rest of the universe …

But philosophy has fallen upon hard times … for example, Hawking in his latest book (“The Grand Design”) dismisses it. For many people, philosophy no longer has a purchase on the “truth” - because it does not follow scientific protocols. What is an experiment or hypothesis in philosophy? How can it be tested?

So in what sense do you think philosophy significant? Why should it be taught at all?
Does it have a “truth dimension”? Should it be allowed in the public square?

A lot of the postings in this forum are meant to discredit a number of philosophical arguments (both assumptions and logic) and maybe even the very possibility of philosophical argumentation. So where does it stand with philosophy? Has it been superseded by science? If philosophy goes down the tubes, does it drag with it intelligent design?

Now I am an advocate of philosophy. And I think that, without philosophy, you cannot account for what science does. But the question whether philosophy can “earn its keep” must be confronted. Specifically, we need to clarify how philosophy goes about its business. And this might shed some light on the intelligent design controversy.

 

[buffalo]

My mistake; I apologize for confusing the two. But after reading the description of Intelligent Design that you provided, I think the philosophy and science are certainly connected, and perhaps by…design. You say so yourself here. It is no wonder that believers (although I question why this theory is mainly defended by Christians and not so much by other faiths) tend to favor Intelligent Design. It still seems to me similar to Creationism, except for a twitch here and there, mainly dropping the word G-d and substituting intelligent design. Again, as you suggest, where there is a Design, there is likely to be a Designer. So, be honest now, isn’t this so-called scientific theory really a religious belief in sheep’s clothing? Your response, perhaps (just guessing): isn’t the theory of evolution really a disguise for atheism? The answer is no, because evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, which means G-d cannot possibly be discussed due to the issues I brought up in another post: one would have to first prove G-d’s existence, describe which G-d one is talking about, and say something about G-d’s possible intentions with regard to the creation of the universe. That would take us out of the realm of science (and, as such topics tend to gravitate toward, politics) and back into philosophy (metaphysics), theology, and faith. And it is in these realms, my friend, which are no less significant than science, that I believe Intelligent Design belongs.

\

If science can empirically test for design, that is observable, testable and repeatable, is it science without religion?

 

[rossum]

If science can empirically test for design, that is observable, testable and repeatable, is it science without religion?

While sciences such as archaeology and Forensic Science can indeed test for design observably, testably and repeatedly, ID so far has done none of those things.

ID claims to have such tests. It has never tried to do any blind trials of those tests, or at least if it has I have never seen any of the results published. How can we trust the claimed ID tests for design if those tests have never themselves been proven in blind trials?

ID is long on claims but short on evidence.

rossum

 

[valentino]

Its easier to believe creation is a design than to believe it just happened?To say it just happened doesn"t make any sense at all.Man knows from his own experience to create anything he has to plan it.

 

[vz71]

And your evidence of an intelligence putting chemicals in the proper order during the Miller Urey experiment is? Of course, any such intelligence must have been present four billion years or so ago when this process was happening.

Got any evidence to show?
rossum

I never referenced Miller Urey.
Your script is showing again.

 

[Sair]

Its easier to believe creation is a design than to believe it just happened?To say it just happened doesn"t make any sense at all.Man knows from his own experience to create anything he has to plan it.

That’s a specifically human experience, though. It doesn’t follow that any other creative force, be it natural or supernatural, would act in the way we do.

 

[rossum]

I never referenced Miller Urey.

Fine. And your evidence of an intelligence putting chemicals in the proper order during the origin of life four billion years or so ago is?

I was trying to make things easier for you since Miller Urey can easily be repeated today in a lab. Four million year old evidence is not as easy to find. Either will suit me, as long as it is evidence.

Got any evidence to show?

rossum

 

[valentino]

That’s a specifically human experience, though. It doesn’t follow that any other creative force, be it natural or supernatural, would act in the way we do.

we don’t know exactly how he created this universe and everythingg in it.I know the bible and of the six days of creation and i’m nnot sure if we have to believe in the six days as we know them today.Evolution could have taken place but not exactly how the evolutionists explain today.Some people believe that everything GoD created was designed specifically cell by cell to make that individual creation.I say He didn"t have to ddo it that way.But I believe he knew what the results would be and if He wanted to He could see how each litttle organism or molecule was created.

 

[tonyrey]

I cannot believe in ID as it currently stands because Intelligent Design is masquerading as a scientific theory.

Design is not a scientific theory but a philosophical explanation based on scientific facts.

By its very nature, it cannot be such because what you call evolution by Design is code for evolution by G-d. When G-d is brought into a theory, the theory loses its scientific validity because one would first have to prove the existence of G-d, explain what the intentions of G-d may be in creating the universe, and describe which G-d one is talking about.

That is putting the cart before the horse because science presupposes that we live in a rational rather than an irrational universe. It need not be intelligible but it is. We need not be intelligent but we are! Why? Because both intelligence and intelligibility are signs of a rational origin. We are made in the image of God but our physical nature requires a physical world created by God.

That’s why I prefer to call ID a faith-based belief regarding the origin of species rather than a scientific theory. Making it a scientific theory is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole; it results in damaging both the peg (faith) and the hole (science).

Science is also based on faith! It wouldn’t have developed if no one had faith in the power of reason and the rational system we call the universe.

 

[edwest2]

Design has nothing to do with philosophy.

When I was in a specialized electronics school, we were each given a box of parts and instructions. The end result had to be a working radio. Intelligence is required to organize something on the magnitude of the universe.

It is a faith statement to say it just happened on its own.

Peace,
Ed

 

[shoe]

No one would take seriously a statement that an automobile was designed and developed in an automobile factory by magic, since it’s obvious to everyone that everything that consists of a design also consists of a designer. If a group of space travelers were visiting another planet and came upon a river winding through a narrow canyon, they could possibly think that either time, random chance, or gravity was the cause. But if those same people came upon a bridge suspended over that canyon, they definitely would not say, “My, look what time, random chance, and gravity have created!” And the reason that they would not make such a foolish statement is that they have learned just by their everyday existence and experience that design means knowledge and knowledge assumes intelligence.

And the existence of abstract ideas that come from the mind such as knowledge, love, justice, etc., is still more evidence of a designer who designed with a purpose. Even the knowledge that scientists gain from inanimate things, things that have no knowledge in and of themselves, such as rocks and plants, testifies to the fact that that knowledge was put there by design during their making. And since knowledge went into the making of inanimate things, and since we know that knowledge is always the product of a mind, we can say that the creation of both animate and inanimate things comes from the mind of God.
"Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made. As a result, they have no excuse;" - Romans 1:20

 

[vz71]

Fine.
I was trying to make things easier for you since Miller Urey can easily be repeated today in a lab.
rossum

You are reading from a script.

 

[tonyrey]

And your evidence of an intelligence putting chemicals in the proper order during the origin of life four billion years or so ago is?

What is the scientific evidence that purposeless, inanimate molecules produced purposeful, living organisms - some of which formulated the Buddhist belief that the mind is **not **a by-product of physical processes but a separate entity from the body?

This hypothesis is not only incoherent, inconsistent and inadequate but also unverifiable, unfalsifiable, uneconomical and unintelligible!

 

[vz71]

Four million year old evidence is not as easy to find. Either will suit me, as long as it is evidence.

Got any evidence to show?

rossum

The very fact that we are here testifies to the fact of the occurance and the intelligence behind the designer.

And it suits much better then random actions of random chemicals.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The very fact that we are here testifies to the fact of the occurance and the intelligence behind the designer.

And it suits much better then random actions of random chemicals.

1. no
2. no

 

[GreggAlvarez]

1. no

Recently, I have stayed out of commenting in the philosophy section due to those who think they are intellectual superiors to those who disagree with them.

But, I could not refrain from commenting on this one because of the transcendent peculiarity and lack of explanation.

vz 71: And it suits much better then random actions of random chemicals.

You: 2) no

This means exactly this: “an intelligence behind the designer” does NOT suit “much better then random actions of random chemicals.” There are only three possibilities here (unless I missed something in accordance to that bit of the conversation):

1. You think that an intelligence behind a designer is only a little better of an explanation than random actions of random chemicals
2. You think that random actions of random chemicals is just as a good an explanation as an intelligent designer.
3. You think that random actions of random chemicals is a better explanation then an intelligent designer.

Pick one and explain it away.

 

[Sair]

The very fact that we are here testifies to the fact of the occurance and the intelligence behind the designer.

And it suits much better then random actions of random chemicals.

Still the obsession with randomness. Chemical processes are not random. Natural selection is not random. They are subject to causal relationships. This is not that difficult to grasp.

 

[tonyrey]

Still the obsession with randomness. Chemical processes are not random. Natural selection is not random. They are subject to causal relationships. This is not that difficult to grasp.

According to those who reject Design genetic mutations are random, chemical processes are purposeless, abiogenesis was** fortuitous **and life is accidental. That is not difficult to grasp…

 

[rossum]

You are reading from a script.

However, my script has references to the scientific evidence supporting my position. Your script has no references and no evidence to back up your position.

Someone reading a Papal Encyclical is reading a script. Does that make what they are reading incorrect? Scripts can be true, and since ID never comes up with anything new all I need is a script. Can you come up with anything that my script does not already cover. Something new? Something recently discovered in the ID research labs? Something recently published in an ID journal.

Evolution has evidential support. As has been evident in this thread, ID has no data to support it beyond “it sure looks designed to me”.

ID is still losing.

rossum

 

[rossum]

What is the scientific evidence that purposeless, inanimate molecules produced purposeful, living organisms - some of which formulated the Buddhist belief that the mind is not a by-product of physical processes but a separate entity from the body?

We do not yet have a complete description of abiogenesis. I have already referenced the Millrt Urey experiment and Powner’s results on pyrimidines. You may also want to reference Spiegelman’s work on autocatalyric RNA. The scientific evidence is not complete, but it is being worked on.

This hypothesis is not only incoherent, inconsistent and inadequate but also unverifiable, unfalsifiable, uneconomical and unintelligible!

There are more than one hypotheses on abiogenesis. Some are indeed incorrect, and we are working to collect enough data to eliminate them. Once the incorrect hypotheses have been eliminated then what is left will be in a much better state than now. That is how science works.

rossum