Intelligent Design

[rossum]

There is a list of nearly a thousand scientists who dissent from Darwinism amongst whom I have the honour to be included as a specialist in the Philosophy of Science!

But how many on that list of yours are called Steve? There is a list of almost 1,400 scientists who are called Steve/Stephanie/Esteban and support evolution: Project Steve. That is equivalent to roughly 14,000 scientists if all names were allowed.

It is also worth pointing out that the official “Dissent from Darwinism” statement does not say what the Discovery Institute wants people to think it does:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

This statement leaves out known evolutionary mechanisms such as founder effect and neutral drift. It is obvious that a subset of evolution cannot explain all that the complete set of evolutionary mechanisms can explain. The last sentence is standard for all scientific theories.

The statement appears to say a lot more than it actually does, and the DI are stretching its meaning even further. Fundamentally, the DI statement is smoke and mirrors.

rossum

 

[Bradski]

Can one judge, whose purview nor competency are in any sense ABOUT science, be more competent than these folk to make definitive determinations about what constitutes science?

Monton’s main claim is that ID doesn’t postulate God as the designer. That it could be aliens for example. And that we should take proponents of ID at their word that it is not theistic. Of course we should. philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2583/1/Methodological_Naturalism_2.pdf

Berlinski? He’s a fellow at the Design Institute for heaven’s sake. That’s like asking an inmate of the asylum for a psychological appraisal of the other inmates.

Fodor’s qualifications are not scientific. He’s a philosopher. His arguments against certain aspects of ‘Darwinism’ could be correct, although there have been enough people queuing up to tell him that he is wrong to cast serious doubts on what he says. In any case, he is not dismantling evolution and proposing ID as a alternative.

Nagel’s main point is the same one that has been brought up in this thread on more than one occasion. He suggests that evolution amounts to the assumption that there is no God (which it doesn’t) so it becomes almost an anti religious stance and therefore requires a balanced view. Which he suggests could be ID. But then he is admitting that ID is in fact a religious view (which it obviously is). academia.edu/2611897/Nagel_on_Public_Education_and_Intelligent_Design_With_Michael_Harbour_and_Robert_Talisse_

Here’s a quote in regard to the book written by Steve Fuller. A sociologist don’t you know.

Steven Poole called his book “Dissent over Descent” “an epoch-hopping parade of straw men, incompetent reasoning and outright gibberish, as when evolution is argued to share with astrology a commitment to “action at a distance”, except that the distance is in time rather than space. It’s intellectual quackery like this that gives philosophy of science a bad name”; Michael Ruse judged it to be “completely wrong and …] backed by no sound scholarship whatsoever”.

Le Fannu steps up to the plate and reiterates exactly what I’ve been saying time after time: ‘Essentially, Intelligent Design is Creationism’. thomasmoreinstitute.org.uk/papers/doubts-about-darwin/

Barham is an atheist? ‘Today, I have come to recognize the cogency of the inference from the contingency of the world to a necessary being.’ evolutionnews.org/2012/05/confessions_of059861.html

And somebody called Jones who writes a blog and has a Facebook page? Wow…

 

[grannymh]

That is interesting, but all that Darwin did, was put in ink that there is an evolutionary process, of which the Pope now agrees is real…

Please stop putting unacceptable words (according to the full context, presented and assumed) in the mouth of any pope.

 

[grannymh]

Can one judge, whose purview nor competency are in any sense ABOUT science, be more competent than these folk to make definitive determinations about what constitutes science?

I used to refer to a link which had ordinary information about the scientific (inductive) method for high school students. Currently, a warning sign about something appears on the site, so I no longer post the link. Personally, when it comes to understanding science, I like to refer to the nitty-gritty methods and materials. What I am saying is that ordinary folk can and do grasp the basics of science research. However, this does not mean that they can make definitive determinations about what constitutes science.

Ordinary folk can ask significant questions such as “Does the evidence warrant the conclusion and/or the interpretation of the conclusion?” " Have all possibilities been explored?" I love those black swans in Australia!

I am not sure of the jargon. Personally, I do not consider knowing the difference between probable and impossible as being able to make definitive determinations about what constitutes science per se. In other words, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Thanks for the by the way!

As long as I am in the sharing mood, I will share what one of my many kids brought to me when I was in the hospital. I still have these with me while I am waiting for the results of a biopsy.

:flowers:

 

[Peter_Plato]

Monton’s main claim is that ID doesn’t postulate God as the designer. That it could be aliens for example. And that we should take proponents of ID at their word that it is not theistic. Of course we should. philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2583/1/Methodological_Naturalism_2.pdf.

Then I need go no further than this. ID is not necessarily theistic, ergo it cannot be identical to Creationism.

You have come to your senses.

For anyone to propose or defend ID does not entail they are Creationists. It would be possible, in principle, then, for even a Creationist to defend ID on non-theistic scientific or evidential merit provided the Creationist was using scientific methods alone to argue the case. It shouldn’t be assumed that merely because he is a Creationist, that he is arguing for ID on Creationist assumptions. Clearly, Monton can’t be arguing from those grounds, so why would a Creationist have to be, necessarily?

Here’s the other problem for you. Creationism of the young Earth variety, would seem to stand or fall on scientific grounds. To be taken seriously, it would have to prove the Earth was created 6000 years ago by resorting to forensic evidence and scientific methods. Creationism is falsifiable in the sense that science can address its claims.

Think about that, Bradski. What sense can there be in dismissing Creationism as “not science” when its claims are provable or not on scientific grounds?

Creationism and ID might both make implicit claims that a “who” was involved in bringing about life, but both must establish their case based upon “how.” That question is within the purview of science. In fact, forensics is a science that attempts to get at the question of who by addressing the question of how with respect to circumstances by proving that the how had to involve a who.

For a judge to claim Creationism and ID are “not science” based upon the contention that science does not address “who” questions contradicts his own standard of what evidence science can provide with respect to accountability and how he allows science to be used in his courtroom to make certain or near certain determinations regarding “who” perpetrated or brought about certain events.

In the case of perpetrating life itself, how can a judge make a ruling that intelligence was not involved by merely siding with those who simply assume that it wasn’t but take no pains to prove it wasn’t. That determination is far from settled because it hasn’t been sufficiently proven, merely assumed by begging the question that scientific methods do not address it.

How would science “know” that scientific methods cannot address questions concerning who without testing those methods against a who question? Clearly, in forensic science, the who question is broached. ID is a perfect case for testing the scope of science against its own presumptions, perhaps.

In fact, if the judge’s ruling is taken at face value it means the determination that intelligence was not involved need not be proven but merely assumed to be true by legal fiat. Why would a legal determination by a judge be an acceptable “method” for establishing a scientific claim for any real scientist? I thought real scientists didn’t do “dogma” with regard to ANY claims. Miller ought to be having night terrors about this one.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

But the Popes free speech is sometimes equated to the word of God…

So what does God know about ET’s

You missed the whole message of Pope Francis’ remark about aliens:

“If—for example—tomorrow an expedition of Martians came, and some of them came to us, here… Martians, right? Green, with that long nose and big ears, just like children paint them… And one says, ‘But I want to be baptized!’ What would happen?” he asked parishioners. “When the Lord shows us the way, who are we to say, ‘No, Lord, it is not prudent! No, let’s do it this way…’”

One assumes the pope doesn’t actually think an alien ship filled with little green men hoping to convert to Catholicism will land in St. Peter’s Square any time soon, and Vatican Radio quickly interpreted the message as one about “inclusion” lest anyone start worrying about the Holy Father’s faculties.

Apparently the Pope’s message about Martians meant, “Who are we to close the doors to the Holy Spirit?” according to an an article attributed to Vatican Radio on the Vatican’s main news website. “The Spirit blows where it wills, but one of the most common temptations of those who have faith is to bar its path and drive it in one direction or another.

Catholic News Service also quickly defended and interpreted the quirky remarks, saying Francis was trying to make the point that the Church is often overly judgmental when it comes to acceptance and that “if the Holy Spirit prompted the most unusual being to see, baptism, who would we be to hinder that person?”

from:thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/13/pope-francis-church-would-baptize-aliens.html

He said nothing about astronauts becoming gods.

 

[edwest2]

Then I need go no further than this. ID is not necessarily theistic, ergo it cannot be identical to Creationism.

You have come to your senses.

For anyone to propose or defend ID does not entail they are Creationists. It would be possible, in principle, then, for even a Creationist to defend ID on non-theistic scientific or evidential merit provided the Creationist was using scientific methods alone to argue the case. It shouldn’t be assumed that merely because he is a Creationist, that he is arguing for ID on Creationist assumptions. Clearly, Monton can’t be arguing from those grounds, so why would a Creationist have to be, necessarily?

Here’s the other problem for you. Creationism of the young Earth variety, would seem to stand or fall on scientific grounds. To be taken seriously, it would have to prove the Earth was created 6000 years ago by resorting to forensic evidence and scientific methods. Creationism is falsifiable in the sense that science can address its claims.

Think about that, Bradski. What sense can there be in dismissing Creationism as “not science” when its claims are provable or not on scientific grounds?

Creationism and ID might both make implicit claims that a “who” was involved in bringing about life, but both must establish their case based upon “how.” That question is within the purview of science. In fact, forensics is a science that attempts to get at the question of who by addressing the question of how with respect to circumstances by proving that the how had to involve a who.

For a judge to claim Creationism and ID are “not science” based upon the contention that science does not address “who” questions contradicts his own standard of what evidence science can provide with respect to accountability and how he allows science to be used in his courtroom to make certain or near certain determinations regarding “who” perpetrated or brought about certain events.

In the case of perpetrating life itself, how can a judge make a ruling that intelligence was not involved by merely siding with those who simply assume that it wasn’t but take no pains to prove it wasn’t. That determination is far from settled because it hasn’t been sufficiently proven, merely assumed by begging the question that scientific methods do not address it.

How would science “know” that scientific methods cannot address questions concerning who without testing those methods against a who question? Clearly, in forensic science, the who question is broached. ID is a perfect case for testing the scope of science against its own presumptions, perhaps.

In fact, if the judge’s ruling is taken at face value it means the determination that intelligence was not involved need not be proven but merely assumed to be true by legal fiat. Why would a legal determination by a judge be an acceptable “method” for establishing a scientific claim for any real scientist? I thought real scientists didn’t do “dogma” with regard to ANY claims. Miller ought to be having night terrors about this one.

Well said.

Ed

 

[buffalo]

The Pope is merely saying, that respect should be offered to all.

No exceptions.

Bye the way, nothing precludes Jesus from emerging from the alien craft…

Or if aliens emerge who are bent on enslaving us. I do not think he would respect them.

 

[buffalo]

That is interesting, but all that Darwin did, was put in ink that there is an evolutionary process, of which the Pope now agrees is real…

No one argues with the evo process known as adaptation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As long as I am in the sharing mood, I will share what one of my many kids brought to me when I was in the hospital. I still have these with me while I am waiting for the results of a biopsy.

:flowers:

 

[buffalo]

The first life to emerge was an anaerobic proto-cell called Archibald. It did not have a navel.

Archibald split into Brian and Chris. After that the numbers get large very quickly.

You can follow it on the web, here. Start at the root of the tree.

rossum

The tree of Life has fallen. It is now a bush. A tangled one.

 

[buffalo]

Monton’s main claim is that ID doesn’t postulate God as the designer. That it could be aliens for example. And that we should take proponents of ID at their word that it is not theistic. Of course we should. philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2583/1/Methodological_Naturalism_2.pdf

Berlinski? He’s a fellow at the Design Institute for heaven’s sake. That’s like asking an inmate of the asylum for a psychological appraisal of the other inmates.

Fodor’s qualifications are not scientific. He’s a philosopher. His arguments against certain aspects of ‘Darwinism’ could be correct, although there have been enough people queuing up to tell him that he is wrong to cast serious doubts on what he says. In any case, he is not dismantling evolution and proposing ID as a alternative.

Nagel’s main point is the same one that has been brought up in this thread on more than one occasion. He suggests that evolution amounts to the assumption that there is no God (which it doesn’t) so it becomes almost an anti religious stance and therefore requires a balanced view. Which he suggests could be ID. But then he is admitting that ID is in fact a religious view (which it obviously is). academia.edu/2611897/Nagel_on_Public_Education_and_Intelligent_Design_With_Michael_Harbour_and_Robert_Talisse_

Here’s a quote in regard to the book written by Steve Fuller. A sociologist don’t you know.

Steven Poole called his book “Dissent over Descent” “an epoch-hopping parade of straw men, incompetent reasoning and outright gibberish, as when evolution is argued to share with astrology a commitment to “action at a distance”, except that the distance is in time rather than space. It’s intellectual quackery like this that gives philosophy of science a bad name”; Michael Ruse judged it to be “completely wrong and …] backed by no sound scholarship whatsoever”.

Le Fannu steps up to the plate and reiterates exactly what I’ve been saying time after time: ‘Essentially, Intelligent Design is Creationism’. thomasmoreinstitute.org.uk/papers/doubts-about-darwin/

Barham is an atheist? ‘Today, I have come to recognize the cogency of the inference from the contingency of the world to a necessary being.’ evolutionnews.org/2012/05/confessions_of059861.html

And somebody called Jones who writes a blog and has a Facebook page? Wow…

When one finds fault with evo then it seems quite natural they would align themselves with others who found the same thing,

 

[tonyrey]

When one finds fault with evo then it seems quite natural they would align themselves with others who found the same thing,

“natural” is the key word. If everything is **natural **there is no reason why any alignment is more reasonable than the others. They are all equally true - or, more likely, equally false!

 

[edwest2]

“natural” is the key word. If everything is **natural **there is no reason why any alignment is more reasonable than the others. They are all equally true - or, more likely, equally false!

I’ve observed two camps. One that uses the word natural to say no God/gods/supernatural forces played a role. And the other where God played a direct causal role.

Ed

 

[tonyrey]

That is interesting, but all that Darwin did, was put in ink that there is an evolutionary process, of which the Pope now agrees is real…

The Pope doesn’t agree that evolution is a sufficient explanation.

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve observed two camps. One that uses the word natural to say no God/gods/supernatural forces played a role. And the other where God played a direct causal role.

And no one who believes God hasn’t played a direct causal role has explained why He is excluded…

 

[Bradski]

Then I need go no further than this. ID is not necessarily theistic, ergo it cannot be identical to Creationism.

I have said before that what, for example, Behe is doing is scientific. No problem with that. His work doesn’t involve goat entrails or searching for coded messages in scripture. He’s a smart man and quite qualified to do what he does. His papers are full of science. The paper you linked to earlier is full of sciency stuff (yes, I did read through it as much as my limited knowledge as a layman would allow). But here’s a quote from someone your side of the argument brings forth as a witness for the defence:

Le Fannu: Essentially, Intelligent Design is Creationism.

If you were given a scientific paper written by someone at The Planar Organisation which used science to show that the world wasn’t spherical (or obloid to be pedantic) and then found that the organisation was funded by the Flat Earth Society then how would you treat it? Would you say: ‘Hey, we need to be fair here. These guys are using maths, geography, astronomy and a whole load of actual scientific methods to make their case. Why isn’t this in the curriculum? I don’t agree with it myself, but it’s science and therefore deserves our attention’.

Let me ask you a simple question. Irrespective of whether you think that ID is associated with creationism, there is no doubt that it is (just see the quote above from one of your supporters). Would you prefer that it wasn’t?

 

[rossum]

The tree of Life has fallen. It is now a bush. A tangled one.

And when you work your way through the tangle to the root of the bush, you find Archibald.

You do realise that HGT is known and has been incorporated into the theory of evolution, don’t you?

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Le Fannu: Essentially, Intelligent Design is Creationism.

Yes, and essentially Darwin agrees.

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally **breathed by the Creator **into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Yes, and essentially Darwin agrees.

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally **breathed by the Creator **into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Some people try to pretend Newton didn’t believe in God either.