Intelligent Design

[Benedictus]

The problem with intelligent design as a science is that it’s an invisible dragon. Nobody clearly articulates what it is. You can’t “test” intelligent design.

Intelligent design isn’t science. Philosophy is supposed to answer “why” and science says “how”. A hammer is a great tool, but not for mowing your lawn. Intelligent design may be all fine and dandy, but it shouldn’t be confused with science.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Fr. Robert Spitzer is supposed to be a knowledgeable guy on this subject.

 

[JimO]

Ahimsa:

OK, but if ID offers an alternative explanation for mutation (an explanation that invokes a supernatural, omnipotent designer), then that implies (1) such an explanation does not belong in a science class, since such a designer is non-empirically verifiable or falsifiable; and (2) this kind of ID is not distinguishable (to me, at least) from theistic evolution.

It is similar to theistic evolution, yes, with a different premise. Strictly speaking, a proponent of theistic evolution begins with a belief in God and a belief that evolutionary processes are valid, whereas, the ID proponent begins with the observation that complex systems exist and that current evolutionary evidence doesn’t entirely explain those systems. It’s a subtle difference.

Ahimsa:

On the other hand, if you want to invoke a non-supernatural designer, then that might be more empirically justifiable.

I don’t follow what a non-supernatural designer would be. If there is a designer of natural systems, that designer would be outside or transcendent from those systems and would, by definition, be supernatural.

 

[cheddarsox]

JimO:

This would work if it were adhered to; however, the problem is that many science teachers teach atheistic evolution, in which God’s absence is implied if not declared.

I just discussed this subject with my science classes last week.
When talking about evolution, we are discussing a scientific theory based on the evidence we find in the natural world. I don’t discuss the possibility of any deity as the cause, because deity is not what science studies. We only discuss what we have physical evidence for.

A religion class is the place to discuss whether deity had a hand it what took place, not the science class. No one expects us to bring up the theory that God is the cause of electromagnetism or erosion either, it is OK to just talk about the physical elements that we observe,yet when this area of science comes up, people suddenly think we should bring up God.

Not discussing God in the science class does not imply God does not exist, any more than not discussing God in gym or music implies God does not exist. All it implies is that God is not the subject at hand.

Most of us have kids in public schools. I do not want the government teaching my kids about deity or leading my kids in prayer to deity. That is not the responsibility or jurisdiction of the education system. That is what I, and my church community are responsible for.

cheddar

 

[Ahimsa]

JimO:

I don’t follow what a non-supernatural designer would be. If there is a designer of natural systems, that designer would be outside or transcendent from those systems and would, by definition, be supernatural.

Consider a human engineer, who is not outside or transcendent of nature, but who nonetheless is able to construct complex systems within nature. One could hypothesize that there exist alien intelligences that are sufficiently knowledgable so that they could find a way to construct genetic systems that possess an inherent potential for evolving non-randomly constructed complex systems.

If something were truly transcendent of nature, then how could it interact with nature?

 

[JimO]

Benedictus:

Intelligent design isn’t science. Philosophy is supposed to answer “why” and science says “how”. A hammer is a great tool, but not for mowing your lawn. Intelligent design may be all fine and dandy, but it shouldn’t be confused with science.

ID isn’t a science in itself, but it does take a scientific approach. If I showed statistically that the odds were 1 in 100,000 that process A could produce X and 1 in 100 that process B could produce X, wouldn’t you consider that a scientific approach to evaluating the likely origin of product X? ID looks at the complexity of biological and physical systems and evaluates the likelihood that these systems came in to being randomly given natural laws. We are handicapped in explaining the origin of complex systems because the empirical data are largely lost and will not likely recur. Thus, we can only look at the products and hypothesize about various processes. Statistics is a perfectly acceptable scientific means by which to understand this problem.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

I guess my question would be should God be included in any science class? Even implied?

Peace

Tim

Then add a metaphysics course where it can be discussed.

 

[JimO]

Ahimsa:

Consider a human engineer, who is not outside or transcendent of nature, but who nonetheless is able to construct complex systems within nature. One could hypothesize that there exist alien intelligences that are sufficiently knowledgable so that they could find a way to construct genetic systems that possess an inherent potential for evolving non-randomly constructed complex systems.

If something were truly transcendent of nature, then how could it interact with nature?

Well, now we get fully into philosophy. Who then designed the alien’s complex systems or the systems outside that alien’s control, and so on? ID is similar to theistic evolution in that both assume an omnipotent creator/designer.

 

[Ahimsa]

JimO:

ID isn’t a science in itself, but it does take a scientific approach. If I showed statistically that the odds were 1 in 100,000 that process A could produce X and 1 in 100 that process B could produce X, wouldn’t you consider that a scientific approach to evaluating the likely origin of product X? ID looks at the complexity of biological and physical systems and evaluates the likelihood that these systems came in to being randomly given natural laws. We are handicapped in explaining the origin of complex systems because the empirical data are largely lost and will not likely recur. Thus, we can only look at the products and hypothesize about various processes. Statistics is a perfectly acceptable scientific means by which to understand this problem.

Ah, JimO, I think I see your point. It’s a matter of probability? But do we know enough about the mechanisms of mutation and genetics to claim that calculations of apparent statistical improbability is of such robustness that we can now justifiably introduce the possibility of a supernatural intelligent designer into high school science text books?

What about publishing these calculations in refereed science journals? Perhaps that’s been done; if so, it does not seem to have convinced many scientists.

 

[JimO]

Ahimsa:

Ah, JimO, I think I see your point. It’s a matter of probability? But do we know enough about the mechanisms of mutation and genetics to claim that calculations of apparent statistical improbability is of such robustness that we can now justifiably introduce the possibility of a supernatural intelligent designer into high school science text books?

What about publishing these calculations in refereed science journals? Perhaps that’s been done; if so, it does not seem to have convinced many scientists.

I believe that this is the direction that ID will take in the future.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Pope Benedict XVI made an encouraging statement on the theory of evolution. Here is what he said: “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed , each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

You can find more on it at: catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/pope-evo.htm

 

[JSmitty2005]

I suggest that if you guys want a Catholic perspective on evolution/intelligent design to go to EWTN’s audio library at: ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/intro.asp and search for “evolution” in the bottom search bar. Some good ones are:
Evolution And Other Things
Evolution
Darwin & Evolution

Then, search in the same bar for “darwin” and listen to “I Was A Teenage Darwinist.”

I think that the evolutionary theory is a problem b/c it’s more of a philosophical mindset than science. Darwin, Marx, and Freud were all so interconnected that it’s scary!

Here is a good Catholic link on the subject of intelligent design.
tfp.org/TFPForum/TFPRecommends/Books/unlocking_the_mystery_of_life.htm

 

[Strider]

Here is a link to the response from the “scientific community” (for wont of a better term) to every posible objection to evolution anyone has ever come up with, including Behe:

talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Keep in mind that the contributors to this site freely admit, as they must, the flaws in Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution theory, including the intractible questions of the origin of life itself and of matter itself. Still, it’s an interesting scan.
I was fortunate enough to have taught at a Catholic high school. I was not constrained by the federal legislation.
I spent about ten minutes on the subject, and then only to say tha laws of the universe , the laws of physics and chemistry and biology are God’s laws, and didn’t he give us a marvelous, wonderful puzzle to try to solve?
Of course, we never will; not completely.

 

[rossum]

Just a thought on teaching God in science class. I used to be a science teacher (Physics). Since I was then, and still am, a Buddhist what I would have taught about God would not have been in accord with Christian doctrine. If you are going to try to introduce God into science classes then you are also going to have to get your local school board to agree agree which God is going to be put into the syllabus: YHWH, Jesus, Allah, Krishna etc. It is much simpler to keep science classes exclusively for science and to keep God(s) in Religion classes.

Currently ID is not well enough developed to be taught as science. As and when ID has developed enough it can legitimately be taught in science class.

rossum

 

[arieh0310]

rossum:

Just a thought on teaching God in science class. I used to be a science teacher (Physics). Since I was then, and still am, a Buddhist what I would have taught about God would not have been in accord with Christian doctrine. If you are going to try to introduce God into science classes then you are also going to have to get your local school board to agree agree which God is going to be put into the syllabus: YHWH, Jesus, Allah, Krishna etc. It is much simpler to keep science classes exclusively for science and to keep God(s) in Religion classes.

Currently ID is not well enough developed to be taught as science. As and when ID has developed enough it can legitimately be taught in science class.

rossum

Excellent point. I do not want anyone (Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, or Athiest) to teach my child about God. That is the role of the parent and the church.

However, I graduated High School in 1995 and an Atheistic, materialistic, naturalistic worldview was overtly taught in EVERY science class. No one ever said “there is no God” but the way the evidence was presented left no “thinking” person any room for God. In the beggining was Matter…

All ID tries to do is say that the scientific evidence points to order and design. Random, meaningless, unguided accident cannot explain the complexity of biological systems.

Why is atheism the only acceptable worldview allowed in school? If evolution is a theory and ID is a theory, why can’t both be presented as theories about the origin of life? As long as we are careful to subtract any denominational distinctives about the nature of God I do not see the problem with having intellectual diversity on the theory of the origin of life. If ID is excluded for HS and college courses (and it is excluded even in higher ed) how can we refine each other’s arguments?

 

[JSmitty2005]

I think that I read somewhere that the Supreme Court recognizes atheism as a religion. So if evolution, which is at the very least implicit atheism, is being taught in public schools, then where’s the supposed seperation of church & state?!

 

[Orogeny]

JimO:

I will say this, I would rather God not be discussed at all in the science classroom than to limit inferences to God from the atheistic point of view. That is simply not happening in the public school systems today.

I strongly disagree with this statement. I keep a very close eye on my son’s science curriculum in public high school. He took biology last year. There was no mention of God or athiesm in the book and, according to him, any comments from the teacher that led him to believe that she was implying anything regarding God or a lack of God. He and I have had many involved discussions regarding evolution and faith, so he knows what to look for.

On the other hand, it is nearly impossible to look strictly at the natural world and not infer something as to its origin.

I infer the hand of God, but that is based on my faith, not my understanding of science. I will guarantee you that there are many people who don’t see the hand of God in anything because they don’t have faith.

I would prefer that if evolution is taught, the concept of ID is at least included as one of the philosophies held by modern scientists.

The problem is that it isn’t one of the philosophies held by modern scientists. It is a device to get creationism taught as science.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

arieh0310:

I guess it is more accurate to say “geologic features” not “fossil record”. When you look at the canyon system that was created within the first few years after the 1980 explosion you will see what is typically labeled “millions of years of sedimentary deposits”. There are cliff walls that are nearly 300 feet high and contain dozens layers of sediment. The sediment layers go in different directions, contain different types of sediment, etc.

If you think the deposits laid down during a volcanic eruptions is typical or even similar to what you would see in a sedimentary depositional system, you REALLY need to find a new source for your information!
I will guarantee you that not one single educated geologist would confuse the pyroclastic deposits generated by St. Helens with, say, the sedimentary, igneous (both extrusive and intrusive) and metamorphic rocks in the Grand Canyon.

The same can be said for the Scab Lands (and I got this information for a NOVA program on PBS, not Answer in Genesis). In the early 1900’s a scientist was laughed out of a meeting with the National Geologic Society because he proposed that a massive flood created all the geologic features there. Nearly a century later scientists are finding his theories correct.

The sediments unveiled by the scablands flood were not laid down in that flood. They were a combination of basalt and loess, which is basically sediment deposited during glacial episodes.
I will note that you admit that scientists have accepted the idea. That’s how science works. Believe it or not, Einstein’s ideas weren’t fully accepted until some predictions made by his theory could be tested.

Whether you like it or not, when a science class teaches that life sprang into existence through a mindless, random process they are advocating an atheistic worldview and there is no counterbalance to that worldview (even when the ID folks use science to prove their point).

I was never taught that life sprang into existence though a mindless, random process. Maybe you went to a bad school. And since ID folks don’t use science (incredulity is a better description), your last sentence is meaningless.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

JimO:

It is similar to theistic evolution, yes, with a different premise. Strictly speaking, a proponent of theistic evolution begins with a belief in God and a belief that evolutionary processes are valid, whereas, the ID proponent begins with the observation that complex systems exist and that current evolutionary evidence doesn’t entirely explain those systems. It’s a subtle difference.

See, that is part of my problem with ID. So what if current evidence isn’t as strong as you would like. Does that mean that the search for that evidence should stop? When do we declare that we have reached the design point and stop doing research? Who makes that call? What if something is declared “designed” and at some point in the future, someone finds a natural explaination?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

Then add a metaphysics course where it can be discussed.

As I have done many times in the past with you, Bufallo, I agree. Teach ID in metaphysics and evolution in science.

Peace

Tim