Intelligent Design

[bibleman]

Intelligent Design is a theory that supports the existence of God really well, however, I have something in me i call the ‘doubt within’.

Anyways I have seen many very intelligent people believe in God because of intelligent design. I have reasons for believing in God that the doubt within cannot argue against, fortunately. but the doubt within has an argument against intelligent design. The doubt within says that although a planet in a universe where life can be supported has an incredibly rediculously small chance of existing, the doubt says that it has a better chance of being a coincidence than being being created by a God who doesnt exist. i know there is an error to what the doubt speaks to me (aside from the fact that the doubt is wrong and God does exist).

Does anyone out there who understands intellifent design well know a good argument against this doubt? or , even better, how to help me simply get rid of this demon that bothers me often?

 

[Maranatha]

Here is Peter Kreeft’s explanation of The Argument from Design. It’s not the only argument. There are 20 good arguments for the existence of God. Faith and Reason are not, and will never be, in conflict.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Try watching “The Privledged Planet”. It really exposes the chance creation of the universe. It shows just how perfectly everything came together to create the earth.

And don’t forget the most important thing…prayer.

I pray everyday for God to grant me the Holy Spirt so that my faith becomes more sound.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If I’m following you here, you’re having doubts about the existence of God. And you’re trying to use Intelligent Design to assuage them.

But I.D. is not made for that; apologetics is. God could still be God without “intelligent design.” We believe ID is true, but ID isn’t the point. ID is not scientific, in a conventional sense: it cannot be proven or disproven. (Just like the existence of God).

For you to have faith, you must ask God for it. Faith is not an intellectual enterprise.

Still, as Maranatha said, reason does not get in the way.

 

[Topher]

Prodigal_Son:

If I’m following you here, you’re having doubts about the existence of God. And you’re trying to use Intelligent Design to assuage them.

But I.D. is not made for that; apologetics is. God could still be God without “intelligent design.” We believe ID is true, but ID isn’t the point. ID is not scientific, in a conventional sense: it cannot be proven or disproven. (Just like the existence of God).

For you to have faith, you must ask God for it. Faith is not an intellectual enterprise.

Still, as Maranatha said, reason does not get in the way.

I have no problem with evolution but it is not scientific either because it cannot be proven. There is no way to apply the scientific method to any orgins sciences becasue the events they study are not repeatable. But we can make resonable conclusions about the world around us by observing its natrue. And intlelligent design and evolution are such reasonable and “scientific” conclusions.

 

[2perfection]

bibleman:

Intelligent Design is a theory that supports the existence of God

Unfortunately, Intelligent Design is not a theory in the scientific sense (while evolution is a theory in that sense) because it has no testable hypothesis. The various evidence presented are either domontrably wrong (irreducible complexity) or logically flawed (Dembskis explanatory filter)

It has no explanatory value, eg, Why are platypus eggs not like bird eggs? Why do dolphins, fish and icthyosaurs have similar body shapes?

The ID asnwer is “they were designed like that”

Evolution answers are “platypuses are from the mammalian line not the avian, and so their eggs carry reptilian characteristics” and “they occupy a niche where a streamlined body is selected for and gives an advantage in that specific fitness landscape”

Dembskis explanatory filter requires knowledge of all natural possibilities to exclude them. It is clear that not all natural processes have been mapped, we make discoveries every week, so natural processes cannot be eliminated.

Further, we know that ID is simply a political front for a conservative religious movement that feels evolutionary theory undermines god.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy.

If you need faith, you dont need ID. It will make a fool of you.

 

[buffalo]

2perfection:

Unfortunately, Intelligent Design is not a theory in the scientific sense (while evolution is a theory in that sense) because it has no testable hypothesis. The various evidence presented are either domontrably wrong (irreducible complexity) or logically flawed (Dembskis explanatory filter)

It has no explanatory value, eg, Why are platypus eggs not like bird eggs? Why do dolphins, fish and icthyosaurs have similar body shapes?

The ID asnwer is “they were designed like that”

Evolution answers are “platypuses are from the mammalian line not the avian, and so their eggs carry reptilian characteristics” and “they occupy a niche where a streamlined body is selected for and gives an advantage in that specific fitness landscape”

Dembskis explanatory filter requires knowledge of all natural possibilities to exclude them. It is clear that not all natural processes have been mapped, we make discoveries every week, so natural processes cannot be eliminated.

Further, we know that ID is simply a political front for a conservative religious movement that feels evolutionary theory undermines god.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy.

If you need faith, you dont need ID. It will make a fool of you.

Evolution is not predictable and cannot be experimentally verified. It does not qualify as science either. It is a theory. Maybe we should add a theory class and metaphysics to schools.

Science by its own definition offers a limited explanation of the universe. It puzzles me why a scientist who is curious by nature wouldn’t want to explore it more broadly.

 

[2perfection]

iamrefreshed:

Try watching “The Privledged Planet”. It really exposes the chance creation of the universe. It shows just how perfectly everything came together to create the earth.

Of course, this sort of logic wont work either. The chance of the creation of the universe is not knows. It may be approaching 1. The idea that the big 6 constants of the universe could have been anything, well that is just an assumption, we have no idea whether they could have had any other value or not.

These two assumptions are used to argue that the universe is highly unlikely, but they dont have evidence.

I read a cosmology paper last year that discussed simulations they had rune with a +/- 50% variation on such forces as the strong nuclear and weak nuclear and the author claimed about 50% of universes would survive between 4 and 10 billion years.

I wish i could source it again, it included source code and I could have run it myself.

 

[buffalo]

2perfection:

Of course, this sort of logic wont work either. The chance of the creation of the universe is not knows. It may be approaching 1. The idea that the big 6 constants of the universe could have been anything, well that is just an assumption, we have no idea whether they could have had any other value or not.

These two assumptions are used to argue that the universe is highly unlikely, but they dont have evidence.

I read a cosmology paper last year that discussed simulations they had rune with a +/- 50% variation on such forces as the strong nuclear and weak nuclear and the author claimed about 50% of universes would survive between 4 and 10 billion years.

I wish i could source it again, it included source code and I could have run it myself.

I would be interested to see if all the variables were plugged in. Scientists agree that 10 to the 135th is chance, anything over is probably designed.

 

[Maranatha]

2perfection:

Unfortunately, Intelligent Design is not a theory in the scientific sense (while evolution is a theory in that sense) because it has no testable hypothesis. The various evidence presented are either domontrably wrong (irreducible complexity) or logically flawed (Dembskis explanatory filter)

ID does not have to be a scientific theory. Evolution, indeed all science, does not indicate if God exists or not. To approach that question we need philosophy and reason.

 

[2perfection]

buffalo:

Evolution is not predictable and cannot be experimentally verified. It does not qualify as science either. It is a theory. Maybe we should add a theory class and metaphysics to schools…

Well, you are mistaken. Evolutionary theory would predict that african apes and humans are genetically similar to eachother and lo, gene sequencing has shown this.

Evolutionary theory predicts that whales evolved from land based mammals and that eventually fossils of whales with legs would be found, and lo, they have been found.

Evolutionary theory predicts you will not find birds with nipples, and lo it is so.

Evolutionary theory predicts that excessive use of herbicides will lead to herbicide resistant weeds, and lo, it is so, and antibiotic resistant germs and the colinisation of ecological niches, and so on.

 

[2perfection]

Maranatha:

ID does not have to be a scientific theory. Evolution, indeed all science, does not indicate if God exists or not. To approach that question we need philosophy and reason.

It needs a scientific basis if it is to be taught as science in the classroom.

Science has nothing to say on the existance or non-existance of god (you are rigth).

But ID as presented is supposed to be scientific proof of ‘a designer’ (woo-woo-wooo) but it isnt. Its just Creationism 2.0 (creationism lite), and is provably designed to get around the state/religion barrier.

 

[2perfection]

Topher:

I have no problem with evolution but it is not scientific either because it cannot be proven.

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

Topher:

There is no way to apply the scientific method to any orgins sciences becasue the events they study are not repeatable…

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA220.html.

Topher:

But we can make resonable conclusions about the world around us by observing its natrue. And intlelligent design and evolution are such reasonable and “scientific” conclusions.

talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Enjoy it.

 

[Maranatha]

2perfection:

It needs a scientific basis if it is to be taught as science in the classroom.

Science has nothing to say on the existance or non-existance of god (you are rigth).

But ID as presented is supposed to be scientific proof of ‘a designer’ (woo-woo-wooo) but it isnt. Its just Creationism 2.0 (creationism lite), and is provably designed to get around the state/religion barrier.

I agree that ID should not be presented as science. If, in the course of teaching evolution, philosophy creeps in to the classroom in any way, then all perspectives should be presented.

 

[2perfection]

Maranatha:

I agree that ID should not be presented as science. If, in the course of teaching evolution, philosophy creeps in to the classroom in any way, then all perspectives should be presented.

Absolutely!

 

[Maranatha]

2perfection:

Absolutely!

Since I don’t see how philosophy can, practically speaking, be kept our of the science classroom during the discussion of evolution, I think ID should be included from the beginning.

 

[buffalo]

2perfection:

It needs a scientific basis if it is to be taught as science in the classroom.

Science has nothing to say on the existance or non-existance of god (you are rigth).

But ID as presented is supposed to be scientific proof of ‘a designer’ (woo-woo-wooo) but it isnt. Its just Creationism 2.0 (creationism lite), and is provably designed to get around the state/religion barrier.

They are working on the proofs. Give them time. What’s the worry?

 

[Topher]

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA220.html.

talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Enjoy it.

I have seen arguements like this before. I find them unimpressive. But my point was not that evolution cannot be proved and therefore no one should believe it. Indeed it cannot be proven but I still think that it is credible. My point about evolution is that the scientific method cannot be applied to it because it is a set of nonrpeatable events. That being the case, it is not truly scientific but only based on conjectures about available evidence. The same is true of ID. One cannot apply the scientific method to it. It to is based on conjectures about the available evidence. However, that does not destroy its credibility as a viable theory, and it probably is a very reasonable theory. I think that the evidence points to some kind of evolution that is guided in some manner by an intelligent being.

 

[Maranatha]

Topher:

I have seen arguements like this before. I find them unimpressive. But my point was not that evolution cannot be proved and therefore no one should believe it. Indeed it cannot be proven but I still think that it is credible. My point about evolution is that the scientific method cannot be applied to it because it is a set of nonrpeatable events. That being the case, it is not truly scientific but only based on conjectures about available evidence. The same is true of ID. One cannot apply the scientific method to it. It to is based on conjectures about the available evidence. However, that does not destroy its credibility as a viable theory, and it probably is a very reasonable theory. I think that the evidence points to some kind of evolution that is guided in some manner by an intelligent being.

You said this very well. A good example you can use to back this up, is Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. He worked out his theory using logic long before it was provable in a laboratory. Just because it was a theory based on logic and reason didn’t make it invalid it just showed the validity of the use of logic and reason. This is not to say that evolution or ID will be proovable by repeatable experiements in a labratory.

 

[2perfection]

Maranatha:

Since I don’t see how philosophy can, practically speaking, be kept our of the science classroom during the discussion of evolution, I think ID should be included from the beginning.

Of course, ID doesnt have a shred of evidence in favour of it, so introducing it early means it can eb thrown out early. More time for real science.