Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[Iamnotafraid]

Prove it. Or…are you afraid.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

“Intelligent Design… The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design’s leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[7][8] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.”

 

[Touchstone]

What programs do you use.

If you mean languages, I do most of my work in Ruby, Python, C++ and Java, with some ActionScript thrown in to support the occasional Flex/Flash project, and some raw C for language bindings and funky crypto bits when needed. I do more Rails work than anything else, though, now.

As far as programs, TextMate, Bash shell, Eclipse, Firefox are the main tools I use day to day.

-TS

 

[MindOverMatter]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

“Intelligent Design… The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design’s leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[7][8] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.”

Let me get this straight. You basically saying that because most of the people who support design are Christian, then the arguement is necessarily invalid?

I suppose then, that when a Christian makes a scientific discovery or helps to form a good theory such as the big bang, such people are not to be trusted because their theories can be used to imply a supernatural cause?

Blind Prejudice and logical arguement, are not synonymous.

 

[buffalo]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

“Intelligent Design… The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design’s leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[7][8] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.”

On January 12th, 1982, Sir Fred Hoyle delivered the Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, entitled “Evolution from Space,” which was later reprinted in a book by the same title … In it he discussed the overwhelming improbability of getting the enzymes needed for even the simplest form of life to function by chance… The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true. (27-28)

 

[MindOverMatter]

If you mean languages, I do most of my work in Ruby, Python, C++ and Java, with some ActionScript thrown in to support the occasional Flex/Flash project, and some raw C for language bindings and funky crypto bits when needed. I do more Rails work than anything else, though, now.

As far as programs, TextMate, Bash shell, Eclipse, Firefox are the main tools I use day to day.

-TS

Whats the easiest and most up to date language to learn?

 

[Iamnotafraid]

Let me get this straight. You basically saying that because most of the people who support design are Christian, then the arguement is necessarily invalid?

I suppose then, that when a Christian makes a scientific discovery or helps to form a good theory such as the big bang, such people are not to be trusted because their theories can be used to imply a supernatural cause?

Blind Prejudice and logical arguement, are not synonymous.

The argument is invalid, for the simple fact, that your Intelligent design belief, is not a valid scientific theory.

It’s not testable or falsifiable. It is not science, it is religion.

 

[Iamnotafraid]

On January 12th, 1982, Sir Fred Hoyle delivered the Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, entitled “Evolution from Space,” which was later reprinted in a book by the same title …

You quote one solitary astronomer?

Over 99% of Scientists accept the theory of evolution.

Wikipedia…

"In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying “intelligent design is not science” and calling on “all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory”

I’d take the scientific opinions of 70,000 Australian scientists and 99% of the scientific community, over Sir Fred Hoyle any day!

 

[Touchstone]

Whats the easiest and most up to date language to learn?

There’s nothing hotter than Ruby, although Python is giving it a go. Ruby is not the easiest language to learn, though. Python is easier up front, but Ruby has extraordinary depth and power as a language, making the payoff bigger when you are in control of it. That means it is easier to really difficult (and tedious) things with Ruby, but you gotta learn the mojo, which takes a bit. Once you get your head wrapped around the lambda features of Ruby, the world is your oyster.

If you want to learn a good, easy, general purpose, albeit a bit outdated language, you can’t go wrong learning Java.

-TS

(Standard caveats apply – Ruby an Python are slow memory hogs compared to C++ for hardcore, optimized code, being dynamic, fully object oriented, memory-managed languages, for example. As always, the best language is many times determined by what you functionality you need to write.)

 

[Touchstone]

On January 12th, 1982, Sir Fred Hoyle delivered the Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, entitled “Evolution from Space,” which was later reprinted in a book by the same title … In it he discussed the overwhelming improbability of getting the enzymes needed for even the simplest form of life to function by chance… The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true. (27-28)

All you have to do to cause Hoyle’s argument to fall completely apart is say three words to him:

Show your math.

As soon as he’s pressed to qualify “anything like as high a possibility of being true”, the jig is up, and the nature of his argument is exposed for what is, magical thinking. That’s his prerogative, but it’s annoying to see superstition being passed of as rigorous analytics. It’s dishonest. Were he alive still and available for questioning, just pressing a little bit on how he calculates his probabilities would show his intuitions for what they are.

The reason science looks for mechanisms and evidences that support natural explanations is precisely because the probabilities Dr. Hoyle supposes are amenable to “gut sense” are so opaque.

-TS

 

[MindOverMatter]

The argument is invalid, for the simple fact, that your Intelligent design belief, is not a valid scientific theory.

It’s not testable or falsifiable. It is not science, it is religion.

No it isn’t religion. Its metaphysics. You wouldn’t call an inference to human design a religion. The design arguement only says that an intelligence is the only thing that could have possibly made it or is the most reasonable inference.

I never said that i supported intelligent design; i support evolution. You are probably correct, and i have no interest in undermining the scientific method.

But i will say this. If a thing is so complex that you cannot sufficiently explain it by natural means, then intelligent design is a valid arguement. Its just not a scientific arguement.

As far as the scientific method is concerned, evolution is a valid theory, since natural theories are the only kind of theory that is empirically valid. But that doesn’t mean that it is a valid metaphysical theory. It may still be the case that a designer explains design more efficiently then evolution can.

 

[MindOverMatter]

All you have to do to cause Hoyle’s argument to fall completely apart is say three words to him:

Show your math.

As soon as he’s pressed to qualify “anything like as high a possibility of being true”, the jig is up, and the nature of his argument is exposed for what is, magical thinking.

-TS

I guess we just have to take your word for it?

 

[geometer]

Why?

Even in a court of law they could not get a scientific definition for evolution. It was simply said that evolution meant “change”. Which is not science…(How many biologists does it take to evolution a light bulb?)

If a change is observed the causual mechanisms for that observed change have to be described in physical terms. A biology teacher said to me about a week ago, that he mentions evolution in the courses that he teaches, but evolution is not hard science.

So why waste time with evolution?

 

[Iamnotafraid]

So why waste time with evolution?

Don’t then, continue believing that a supernatural God is responsible for everything.

Why think, why learn, who cares?

God did it, case closed.

 

[MindOverMatter]

God did it, case closed.

Well done. Welcome to the ranks.

 

[Touchstone]

I guess we just have to take your word for it?

Well, no. Maybe try to supply your own math? What are the *a priori *probabilities of an Intelligent Designer, responsible for the “design of life”, some billions of years ago?

I think if you actually give that some thought, it will become clear what a ludicrous enterprise that is, and then you won’t have to take my word for it, as you will have encountered the folly of Hoyle’s statement for yourself.

-TS

 

[Iamnotafraid]

Well done. Welcome to the ranks.

Quote Mining and a very juvenile debating tactic.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Well, no. Maybe try to supply your own math?

No.

What are the *a priori *probabilities of an Intelligent Designer, responsible for the “design of life”, some billions of years ago?

You tell me.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Quote Mining and a very juvenile debating tactic.

Yes, but ultimately fun.

 

[Touchstone]

No it isn’t religion. Its metaphysics. You wouldn’t call an inference to human design a religion. The design arguement only says that an intelligence is the only thing that could have possibly made it or is the most reasonable inference.
This is a fair assessment. ID is not overtly religious, but is metaphysical in nature. The “religion” label gets applied based on the conspicuous overlap between ID proponents and religious thinkers (and yes, I’m well aware that many ID advocates are not religious). The suspicion is that religion is the animating force behind the metaphysical argument, as it seems fairly required by many prominent religions and also seems hard to justify in secular terms.

I never said that i supported intelligent design; i support evolution. You are probably correct, and i have no interest in undermining the scientific method.

That’s certainly true. An omniscient God is the invincible answer for all questions, hands down. Nothing else can hope to compete as an explanation when it is up against an omniscient, omnipotent God. Which, paradoxically, is the best reason to avoid that answer like the plague as a rationalist thinker. *That which explains everything explains nothing.

*-Touchstone

 

[Touchstone]

No.

Suit yourself. But it’s there as an alternative that makes the point if you don’t just want to take it from me.

You tell me.

The probabilities are inscrutable, utterly intractable. It’s foolish to even try to map out the denominators and numerators you would need for any probability assessment. So, the answer from me is “it’s folly to pretend to know the probabilities of such thing, and claims of such are patently exercises in intuition and pretense”.

It’s not as impressive in a speech to say “and after all this time, the idea of a priori probabilities in metaphysics remains as ridiculous as it ever was, so I really can’t responsible say anything more on that than we have not the first foothold on knowing such things”, but reasoning is a harsh a mistress much of the time.

-TS