Intelligent Design

[rossum]

What is the basis of your assumption that science will fully explain the origin of the universe and all its inhabitants?

I make no such assumption. All I do is to observe the currently available explanations, and pick the best of those currently available. When a better explanation comes along, then I will switch to that one.

Science switched from Newton’s explanation of gravity to Einstein’s explanation. Einstein’s explanation was better, but it is still not perfect. Since we don’t yet have the theory of quantum gravity we have to make do with Einstein until we do have one, just as we made do with Newton before 1905.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

I consider ID to be a pseudoscience.

The issue I have with ID is that it seems to represent a god of the gaps.

The issue I have with non-ID is that it substitutes deism for Christianity with its claim that God never intervenes regardless of what happens on this planet.

 

[tonyrey]

I make no such assumption. All I do is to observe the currently available explanations, and pick the best of those currently available. When a better explanation comes along, then I will switch to that one.

Science switched from Newton’s explanation of gravity to Einstein’s explanation. Einstein’s explanation was better, but it is still not perfect. Since we don’t yet have the theory of quantum gravity we have to make do with Einstein until we do have one, just as we made do with Newton before 1905.

rossum

Your claim that “The gap is getting smaller, which does not bode well for the long term future of the ID designer” implies that science will eventually explain most, if not all, events in the universe. You also “pick the best of those currently available” from scientific explanations. On what do you base that limitation? What are your criteria for valid explanations? Do you believe **all **human decisions have a scientific explanation? If not why not?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m not dismissing the idea but I would say it makes no sense.

I think this points out something undeniable about reality.

In some way it makes “no sense” to think that human beings must come into existence via some peculiar process of cell development and then emerge through the birth canal of existing female humans. That, too, “makes no sense” in that there is no obvious reason why THAT should be way of things instead of some other. Why should gravity instead of laws of repulsion be the way of things? There is something, at ground, nonsensical, arbitrary and capricious about why anything is the way it is instead of some other.

Now, an atheist will simply acknowledge that that is simply the way of things, the “brute facts” of existence and deride the theist for wishing to have a further explanation. It seems to me, despite the claims of people like Peter Atkins, this resort to brute facts is the determinably “lazy” strategy.

A theist could, despite claiming God did it, still posit that God has discoverable “reasons” for having done so, whereas by resorting to “brute facts” the atheist is proposing a terminus to all inquiry of his own determination.

Even if the ultimate reasons behind birthing or biogenesis make “no sense” to us in terms of our current understanding and may not, in fact, have completely “logically causal” reasons for being one way rather than another, it does not entail God having his reasons could not at some point provide the fully comprehensible story.

Even if we discover that a madman committed a crime, the madman could have nonsensical reasons, albeit still “reasons” for having done so. The atheist, as per this analogy, is simply left with the brute inexplicable facts and believes those to be sufficient. The atheist isn’t willing to accept any “crime” was committed because of a presumption that there is no possibility of it being ascribed to any intention whatsoever, no matter how nonsensical, but that just having occurred ultimately suffices to account for every possible event in its every detail, in spite of the fact that, in the end, such an explanation is no explanation at all since it, ultimately explains nothing since it leaves all subsequent “explanations” ungrounded.

 

[edwest2]

I think this points out something undeniable about reality.

In some way it makes “no sense” to think that human beings must come into existence via some peculiar process of cell development and then emerge through the birth canal of existing female humans. That, too, “makes no sense” in that there is no obvious reason why it should be way of things instead of some other. Why should gravity instead of laws of repulsion be the way of things? There is something, at ground, nonsensical about why anything should be the way it is instead of some other.

Now, an atheist will simply acknowledge that that is simply the way of things, the “brute facts” of existence and deride the theist for wishing to have a further explanation. It seems to me, despite the claims of people like Peter Atkins, this resort to brute facts is the determinably “lazy” strategy.

A theist could, despite claiming God did it, still posit that God has discoverable “reasons” for having done so, whereas by resorting to “brute facts” the atheist is proposing a terminus to all inquiry of his own choosing.

Even if the ultimate reasons behind birthing or biogenesis make “no sense” to us in terms of our current understanding and may not, in fact, have completely “logically causal” reasons for being one way rather than another, it does not entail God having his reasons could not at some point provide the fully comprehensible story.

Even if we discover that a madman committed a crime, the madman could have nonsensical reasons, albeit still “reasons” for having done so. The atheist, as per this analogy, is simply left with the brute inexplicable facts and believes those to be sufficient. The atheist isn’t willing to accept any “crime” was committed because of a presumption that there is no possibility of it being ascribed to any intention whatsoever, no matter how nonsensical, but that just having occurred is ultimately sufficient to account for every possible event in its every detail.

Well, here’s the thing. God created two individuals - our first parents. He endowed them with certain gifts, including bodily immortality. They were given only one command, one restriction, but they were deceived and listened to a stranger.

How the body works, and the information contained in DNA and non-coding DNA (formerly, Junk DNA), has raised the complexity level regarding information storage. ID recognizes this and the tide appears to be moving toward a designer, not some disordered state somehow becoming ordered.

The “God did it” versus “Nothing did something, by accident” shows the divide. The claim in scientific circles is that they don’t know what causes gravity but they understand perfectly how it works and I could demonstrate the effects of gravity all day.

God created as He willed. That’s really all we need to know. Science cannot study certain things that the Church tells us is true, like we all have souls.

These sorts of threads will continue to appear. The goal is universal compliance with the carved in stone explanation: “You were made by no one. You are chemicals that, through a very long time period, ended up turning into human beings.” After all, there are those who want a secular world and, as stated in a review on amazon.com: “Keep your Bible out of my government.” These conflicting worldviews can have a profound effect on human behavior. Radical individualism and moral relativism give rise to tribalism, but one tribe is not content to live alongside others. We must see it their way or get called names.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

I think this points out something undeniable about reality.

In some way it makes “no sense” to think that human beings must come into existence via some peculiar process of cell development and then emerge through the birth canal of existing female humans. That, too, “makes no sense” in that there is no obvious reason why THAT should be way of things instead of some other. Why should gravity instead of laws of repulsion be the way of things? There is something, at ground, nonsensical, arbitrary and capricious about why anything is the way it is instead of some other.

Now, an atheist will simply acknowledge that that is simply the way of things, the “brute facts” of existence and deride the theist for wishing to have a further explanation. It seems to me, despite the claims of people like Peter Atkins, this resort to brute facts is the determinably “lazy” strategy.

A theist could, despite claiming God did it, still posit that God has discoverable “reasons” for having done so, whereas by resorting to “brute facts” the atheist is proposing a terminus to all inquiry of his own determination.

Even if the ultimate reasons behind birthing or biogenesis make “no sense” to us in terms of our current understanding and may not, in fact, have completely “logically causal” reasons for being one way rather than another, it does not entail God having his reasons could not at some point provide the fully comprehensible story.

Even if we discover that a madman committed a crime, the madman could have nonsensical reasons, albeit still “reasons” for having done so. The atheist, as per this analogy, is simply left with the brute inexplicable facts and believes those to be sufficient. The atheist isn’t willing to accept any “crime” was committed because of a presumption that there is no possibility of it being ascribed to any intention whatsoever, no matter how nonsensical, but that just having occurred ultimately suffices to account for every possible event in its every detail, in spite of the fact that, in the end, such an explanation is no explanation at all since it, ultimately explains nothing since it leaves all subsequent “explanations” ungrounded.

In other words reasons disappear altogether, an unfortunate consequence for materialists who claim their explanation is “the best available”. It makes one wonder how they reach that conclusion. It certainly leads to absurdism - or should it be lunacy?

 

[tonyrey]

Nothing more need be said.

John

Is what you think and say due to chance?

If not why not?

 

[tonyrey]

We have evidence of the existence of a designer, a demonstration that order/complexity flows from reason.

I don’t read ID stuff but strictly in regards to design, the proof is simply in the pudding; the evidence of a designer is in the design. We know from experience that complexity and order arise from intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut, not accidentally. We at least have reason to trust that which we can observe.

So do we ignore evidence simply because we can’t locate the designer? If we were to find a doghouse on some previously unexplored planet, should we deduce that some doghouses must have natural causes? Or should we consider other causes? How much more should we consider that unfathomably more complex systems in nature should have been caused by design?

No, her programmer designed her web.

Why not? If you we’re to set out to catch flies more efficiently, or to design a robot to do so, you might well eventually arrive at designing a web yourself.
Maybe, or maybe we just miss the forest for the trees.

No doubt about it. Analysis is not an adequate substitute for synthesis. Isolated features are far less informative and far less significant than a panoramic view.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The “God did it” versus “Nothing did something, by accident” shows the divide. The claim in scientific circles is that they don’t know what causes gravity but they understand perfectly how it works and I could demonstrate the effects of gravity all day.

The thing is they don’t understand “perfectly” how gravity works. What they have is a plausible explanation that, given certain assumptions, it should work. Given that it does work in the manner it is supposed to as proposed by those assumptions, the assumptions must be true. At some point, however, the “explanatory” assumptions themselves run into or are hinged upon an undeniable, but inexplicable wall of the “unknown.”

That wall is identified by atheists as the “brute fact” of reality, but seen through the eyes of theists it is the way God willed things to be. It is still the same wall of the unknown, however.

As far as the atheist is concerned, there is no need to broach that wall once the wall has been discovered. It amounts to “the end of discussion” because “brute fact.”

The theist, on the other hand, claims the wall itself has significance and can be understood through other means, as primarily revealed by the “Wall” Itself, so to speak.

 

[edwest2]

The thing is they don’t understand “perfectly” how gravity works. What they have is a plausible explanation that, given certain assumptions, it should work. Given that it does work in the manner it is supposed to as proposed by those assumptions, the assumptions must be true. At some point, however, the “explanatory” assumptions themselves run into or are hinged upon an undeniable, but inexplicable wall of the “unknown.”

That wall is identified by atheists as the “brute fact” of reality, but seen through the eyes of theists it is the way God willed things to be. It is still the same wall of the unknown, however.

As far as the atheist is concerned, there is no need to broach that wall once the wall has been discovered. It amounts to “the end of discussion” because “brute fact.”

The theist, on the other hand, claims the wall itself has significance and can be understood through other means, as primarily revealed by the “Wall” Itself, so to speak.

I understand what you’re saying but non-theists rely on materialist only assumptions. Gravity exists. We got from the earth to the moon and we had to know before we built the Saturn rocket exactly how much thrust it would need to escape earth’s gravitational pull, and the same with the two-part lunar lander. The upper part had to contain the right amount of fuel to ascend and dock with the orbiting capsule. They didn’t have GPS to help them out.

And brute facts is the wall that separates theists from non-theists. We are not here by accident. We, and everything around us, was created. Science has self-imposed limits, like Divine Revelation from God being an invalid source of knowledge. Science, in other words, has part of the story, and here and elsewhere, non-theists are telling us that regarding ID or theistic evolution, they are right and theists are wrong.

Best,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Your claim that “The gap is getting smaller, which does not bode well for the long term future of the ID designer” implies that science will eventually explain most, if not all, events in the universe.

AIUI, the ID designer only explains parts of biology and perhaps part of the origin of life. ID does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe. Within biology the space available for the designer has been shrinking since 1859.

You also “pick the best of those currently available” from scientific explanations. On what do you base that limitation?

Because I cannot pick an explanation that is not currently available. You may insert the Monty Python Cheese Shop sketch here. Laplace based his calculations on Newton because Newton was the best he had available at the time. He could not have based his calculations on Einstein because he lacked a time machine.

What are your criteria for valid explanations?

They give better predictions than the alternatives.

Do you believe **all **human decisions have a scientific explanation? If not why not?

Some human decisions do, other decisions do not. “There is a fire in my house, I will escape the fire by leaving the house,” has a very obvious scientific explanation. “I prefer blue to red,” does not.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

AIUI, the ID designer only explains parts of biology and perhaps part of the origin of life. ID does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe. Within biology the space available for the designer has been shrinking since 1859.

Because I cannot pick an explanation that is not currently available. You may insert the Monty Python Cheese Shop sketch here. Laplace based his calculations on Newton because Newton was the best he had available at the time. He could not have based his calculations on Einstein because he lacked a time machine.

They give better predictions than the alternatives.

Some human decisions do, other decisions do not. “There is a fire in my house, I will escape the fire by leaving the house,” has a very obvious scientific explanation. “I prefer blue to red,” does not.

rossum

No way. If anything the space has increased.

 

[buffalo]

AIUI, the ID designer only explains parts of biology and perhaps part of the origin of life. ID does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe. Within biology the space available for the designer has been shrinking since 1859.

Because I cannot pick an explanation that is not currently available. You may insert the Monty Python Cheese Shop sketch here. Laplace based his calculations on Newton because Newton was the best he had available at the time. He could not have based his calculations on Einstein because he lacked a time machine.

They give better predictions than the alternatives.

Some human decisions do, other decisions do not. “There is a fire in my house, I will escape the fire by leaving the house,” has a very obvious scientific explanation. “I prefer blue to red,” does not.

rossum

No way. If anything the space has increased.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Within biology the space available for the designer has been shrinking since 1859.

You could know that only if you know how much space the designer had to begin with. Seems more like a presumption than a substantial claim, but time will tell.

 

[rossum]

You could know that only if you know how much space the designer had to begin with. Seems more like a presumption than a substantial claim, but time will tell.

In the 1940s an ID proponent could have argued, “We don’t know how amino acids appeared, it must have been the designer.” Then in the 1950s Miller and Urey did their experiment, and that part of ID was no longer available. Since then many other things that ID used to assign to the designer have been taken away from ID and replaced by a non-designer scientific explanation.

I can observe the number of available ID arguments shrinking.

Indeed, ISTM that Dr Dembski has essentially abandoned the arena of biology entirely. His current, “search for a search” idea is outside biology. No longer does the designer directly twiddle DNA to produce white fur. The designer causes snow to fall, and lets evolution twiddle the DNA to produce white fur. It is still design, but it is outside biology and is asymptotically approaching the TE position.

As science fills in the details of biology, ID is moving into other areas where there are more gaps in the science: abiogenesis and cosmology. Always the search for a gap.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

In the 1940s an ID proponent could have argued, “We don’t know how amino acids appeared, it must have been the designer.” Then in the 1950s Miller and Urey did their experiment, and that part of ID was no longer available. Since then many other things that ID used to assign to the designer have been taken away from ID and replaced by a non-designer scientific explanation.

I can observe the number of available ID arguments shrinking.

rossum

It is not clear, to me at least, that Miller-Urey established anything substantial regarding the possibility of protein synthesis. Amino acids are a far cry from functional proteins which require a specified ordering of amino acids in order to fold properly. The gap remains, it just has been more clearly defined. That isn’t the same as shrinking it, however.

 

[Al_Moritz]

It is not clear, to me at least, that Miller-Urey established anything substantial regarding the possibility of protein synthesis. Amino acids are a far cry from functional proteins which require a specified ordering of amino acids in order to fold properly. The gap remains, it just has been more clearly defined. That isn’t the same as shrinking it, however.

You still haven’t read my article on the origin of life, have you, Peter?

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

 

[rossum]

It is not clear, to me at least, that Miller-Urey established anything substantial regarding the possibility of protein synthesis.

Yes they did. Making proteins with amino acids is a gret deal easier than making proteins when you have no amino acids.

I agree that amino acids are not proteins, but they are a step on the road to proteins. Science has made that step. Neither creationism nor ID have made that step. That puts science one step ahead.

The gap remains, it just has been more clearly defined. That isn’t the same as shrinking it, however.

I disagree. The old gap had two parts to it, first making amino acids and second assembling those amino acids into proteins. Science has resolved the first of the two parts. That is progress and the remaining gap is narrower than it was.

I await news of miraculously produced amino acids coming from some ID lab.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

You still haven’t read my article on the origin of life, have you, Peter?

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

Yes, I did. You spelled apparently as “aparently” in the section after your summary in part 7.

The issue I have is that you treat what could have been a simple writing of the “laws” of life into matter as if it had to have been an act of “tinkering” by God. I don’t agree. I suspect the principle reason for doing this is to circumvent “God of the gaps” accusations. I don’t think allowing atheists to dictate terms is proper style.

The laws of physics could have been “written” into the universe at the Big Bang and the laws of “life” at biogenesis. It need not have been a tinkering but simply a unique enterprise on its own. God has nothing to apologize for.

The only reason it is viewed as “tinkering,” I suspect, is to bolster a claim that the front loading occurred earlier in time at the Big Bang and to anticipate accusations of “God of the gaps.” I simply don’t accept the “tinkering” model since I don’t accept front-loading. It all seems too “watchmaker”-like. God is free to improvise.

Science may tell us some things about the way the physical universe operates, but this view of reverse engineering the watch in order to figure out how it works is very much based on the assumption that the universe is technology and God an engineer. He could be that to some extent without a necessary constraint being imposed that he must ONLY be that. The “tinkerer” concern only arises if one assumes God must function within the constraints of a competent engineer and not Creator. We don’t dictate the terms under which creation occurs merely because we have obtained some sense of how it functions.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes they did. Making proteins with amino acids is a gret deal easier than making proteins when you have no amino acids.

I agree that amino acids are not proteins, but they are a step on the road to proteins. Science has made that step. Neither creationism nor ID have made that step. That puts science one step ahead.

I disagree. The old gap had two parts to it, first making amino acids and second assembling those amino acids into proteins. Science has resolved the first of the two parts. That is progress and the remaining gap is narrower than it was.

I await news of miraculously produced amino acids coming from some ID lab.

rossum

Except, the analogy would be similar to the invention of the wheel being a big step towards automobile production. To claim that, one has to forget that wheels are not much more than rocks rolling down hills, while internal combustion engines are an entirely different order of engineering, not to mention all the other parts that have to be built and assembled together in precisely the right order. The gap is still as wide as ever, since grasping that rocks rolling down hills can have functional implications is only a negligible step, at best, in filling that gap.