Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[tonyrey]

To which of my two assertions does your question apply?

Both.

 

[tonyrey]

But you would agree that evolution is not by design?
In scientific terms it is a mixture of chance and regularity.

At last you have admitted there is an element of chance in unDesigned evolution. I shall not waste any more time and energy explaining how it is the fundamental factor. I shall leave others to judge whether my reasoning is sound.

How is this relevant to me? I have more gods in my scriptures than there are in yours. In numerical terms you are closer to being an atheist than I am.

How about Occam’s Razor?! Why do you need so many gods?

Chemistry is not a chance process, but a regular process. It can explain why particular combinations of molecules happen without resorting to chance.

So you disagree with Monod that life began by the chance collision of particles of nucleic acid in the ‘prebiotic soup.’? Can chemistry explain why the specific combination of molecules necessary for abiogenesis occurred out of an immense number of possibilities?

Abiogenesis is separate from evolution, and was a lot less fortuitous than you seem to think.

So you agree that it was partly fortuitous? And the fortuitous element precedes and provides the objects from which the selection is made?

And reproduction is geared towards survival…
No, only such survival as is required for successful reproduction. Survival is a means, not an end. Reproduction is the end.

Do you mean only the fittest who reproduce successfully survive? Or those who survive do so in order to reproduce successfully? I don’t understand why you think reproduction is the end. Surely it is necessary to survive in order to reproduce. The first living organisms were not the results of reproduction.

That is because you reject your own experience of your intelligence as unscientific even though you rely on your intelligence to reject it as unscientific.
I am not a disembodied intelligence.

That does not negate your experience of intelligent design.

I have never seen any scientific evidence of any disembodied intelligences. Why should I not reject disembodied intelligences from science?

You believe in disembodied intelligences and yet you forbid any reference to them in the context of evolution in the science class. The compartmentalization of knowledge has long been recognized as unsound educational practice. Modern schools and universities show the links between branches of knowledge and even combine certain subjects for teaching purposes.

Such entities may exist in theology, but I am talking about what is taught in science class, not in theology class
.

You know perfectly well that philosophy and theology are not taught in most schools and even then they are usually optional subjects. Your motive is obviously to eliminate Design from the curriculum. Why don’t you admit you are biased against Design because of your own philosophical assumptions?

ID is not yet science.

Your interpretation of science is based on the outdated paradigm that the fundamental level of physical reality is that which is directly observable. The latest definition by Britain’s Science Council is that “science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence”. Evidence is obtained not only from external events but also by observation of our mental activity. Much research in sciences like economics, political science, geology, paleontology, ecology, meteorology and astronomy relies not on standard experiments but quasi-experiments.

You claim Design is unfalsifiable because you cannot falsify it with your arguments! Yet Design can be falsified by showing that the most complex natural phenomena can be explained mechanistically. We can perform neurological experiments to determine whether intelligent design is produced solely by physical processes - in which case not only non-human but human design becomes an illusion.

Design presupposes the principle of uniformity in the universe - which is an empirical generalisation. If the laws of nature cease to hold good the concept of Design is instantly falsified. On the other hand if the principle of uniformity is not scientific every science course should be introduced with an explanation of the limitations of science and the principles on which it is based. Not to do so distorts the scope of science and the explanatory power of NeoDarwinism - which should be viewed in its true perspective as a controversial theory and not as a complete account of human existence. It is unscientific and immoral to conceal the limitations of science in order to implant atheism in the minds of children. I thought Buddhists put the truth before such agendas…

 

[liquidpele]

How about Occam’s Razor?! Why do you need so many gods?

Oh the Irony…

 

[rossum]

At last you have admitted there is an element of chance in unDesigned evolution.

I have always agreed that there is a chance element in evolution. We disagree over whether that chance element is dominant or subordinate.

Can chemistry explain why the specific combination of molecules necessary for abiogenesis occurred out of an immense number of possibilities?

Chemistry can explain why some combinations happen, while others do not. Chemistry limits the possibilities: we see H[sub]2[/sub]O, we do not see H[sub]3[/sub]O.

So you agree that it was partly fortuitous?

Yes.

And the fortuitous element precedes and provides the objects from which the selection is made?

No. As I have said, chemistry was involved from the start and chemistry is not fortuitous.

The first living organisms were not the results of reproduction.

Nor were they the results of evolution. They were the results of abiogenesis.

That does not negate your experience of intelligent design.

I have repeatedly given you the examples of archaeology and forensic science. I have no problem with intelligent design.

You believe in disembodied intelligences and yet you forbid any reference to them in the context of evolution in the science class.

Correct. Those disembodied intelligences are part of a theology or a philosophy class, not a science class. I also keep history or languages in a separate class from science. History, theology or Spanish are not the appropriate subject matter for a science class.

The compartmentalization of knowledge has long been recognized as unsound educational practice.

“Today children we are going to learn mathematics. Pick up your history textbooks and read Chapter One about the Romans invading England.” Very sensible I’m sure.

Your motive is obviously to eliminate Design from the curriculum.

To repeat, I have no problem with design. I have a problem with design by disembodied entities, whose existence is unsupported by any scientific evidence, being taught in a science class.

Why don’t you admit you are biased against Design because of your own philosophical assumptions?

I have no problem at all with archaeology being taught. I have no problem with ID being taught in theology or politics classes where it belongs. Currently ID has not earned its place in science classes.

Your interpretation of science is based on the outdated paradigm that the fundamental level of physical reality is that which is directly observable. The latest definition by Britain’s Science Council is that “science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence”.

Currently the only evidence for ID is from the “social world”, not the “natural world”. That is why I say that ID has a legitimate place in a Political Science class.

You claim Design is unfalsifiable because you cannot falsify it with your arguments!

You can easily refute my claim by giving me a description of something that could not have been designed, in the same way the Darwin described things that could not have evolved. Since it is you who is proposing ID as science, it is up to you to provide the possibility of falsification. They you can proceed with experiments or observations intended to test that falsification.

Yet Design can be falsified by showing that the most complex natural phenomena can be explained mechanistically.

You need to read more Dembski:When the Explanatory Filter fails to detect design in a thing, can we be sure no intelligent cause underlies it? The answer to this question is No. For determining that something is not designed, the Explanatory Filter is not a reliable criterion. False negatives are a problem for the Explanatory Filter. This problem of false negatives, however, is endemic to detecting intelligent causes. One difficulty is that intelligent causes can mimic law and chance, thereby rendering their actions indistinguishable from these unintelligent causes. It takes an intelligent cause to know an intelligent cause, but if we don’t know enough, we’ll miss it.

Source: William Dembski, The Explanatory Filter.
Since design can mimic regularity and chance, merely showing that something did not have to be designed does not imply that it was not designed. You need to determine that it was impossible for the object in question to have been designed.

For example, an archaeologist knows something of the capabilities of Stone Age humans. If she finds a machined aluminium cylinder block she can be certain that it was not designed by Stone Age humans. Such an object could not have been designed by Palaeolithic humans. That is the sort of thing that I am looking for.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

But this third step operates on the same logical fallacy as that relied upon by the IC and improbability arguments, that is, by discovering the inadequacies of an explanation (in this case regularity or chance) another one (design) may be automatically accepted.

It’s automatically accepted as a more reasonable explanation. Ordered, purposeful, complex systems showing symmetry and coordination of parts are evidence of design. We understand that Designed Systems are the result of Intelligence (or conscious plan).

The inference is therefore a good one – as Dr. Axe indicates – the system suggests Intelligent Design as the best solution.

 

[StAnastasia]

The inference is therefore a good one – as Dr. Axe indicates – the system suggests Intelligent Design as the best solution.

But by what kind of designer?

 

[Michaelo]

It’s automatically accepted as a more reasonable explanation. ** Ordered, purposeful, complex systems showing symmetry and coordination of parts** are evidence of design. We understand that Designed Systems are the result of Intelligence (or conscious plan).

Can you quantify design? Dembski appears to have failed in this pursuit as his work is “riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others’ results.”

source

The inference is therefore a good one – as Dr. Axe indicates – the system suggests Intelligent Design as the best solution.

But the filter implicitly defines the product of intelligent design as that which cannot be explained by regularity or chance–more negative reasoning.

 

[reggieM]

But by what kind of designer?

That is an excellent follow-up question. It flows from the establishment of the first point – namely, that there is evidence of intelligence at work in the universe.
There’s another discussion on CAF where a non-Christian theist (greylorn) who already accepts the foundational point (that Dr. Axe supported in his peer-reviewed work) but is looking for the “nature of the designer”.

That is certainly fine – a number of methods can be used for that task, many of which come directly from empirical observation and science, and others from logic and philosophy.

To determine the nature of the designer, one looks for the evidence in the various systems, in nature and in the itself.

For example, most who accept the ID position that the mathematical precision of the universe and its “rational nature” are evidence that the Designer is a supreme genius. That is exactly what Einstein felt upon discovering an elegant, simple but profoundly universal formula that explains the physics of the universe (at least to a large extent). The Designer fulfills all the marks of a “Genius” – and anyone defines that term.

The same can be found true on the biological level. Again, the human brain is comprised of over a billion neutrons which work with over a trillion functional relationships with neurons in a micro-universe of complexity and design.

This structure itself, which is the “engine” of the mind of Einstein and of all human achievements cannot be explained by random mutations and a process of elimination and adaptability. The mind posseses powers which are nearly infinitely greater than what is strictly required for “survival”. But again, there’s no need to re-prove this point which is shown also in Douglas Axe’s work … it’s the follow-up question you posed (what is the nature of the designer) that is more interesting to look at.

So, we see some attributes. Immense scope of action (we can call the universe “immense”, genius level powers of creativity and organization, profound attention to detail, an interest in purpose and function … all of this and more can be seen.

But even a Deist could arrive at that level of knowledge about the Designer.

It’s the study of human consciousness, morality and spirituality that provides a deeper insight into the nature of the creator. The universal desire for happiness and Good is one such aspect.

One recent ID-friendly author has written a book on this topic – seeking to show by empirical observation that there is only one designer and not multiple (I haven’t read it, but the point is that people are working on this).

There are other options. ID presupposes that the design which is evident in nature (i.e. not possible through stochastic processes) is analogous to human intelligence.

That is a reasonable inference since human intelligence is part of the universe and the work of human reason corresponds with the nature of the universe as well. Thus the “kind of intelligence” that is evident can be understood as analogous to human intelligence. This also gives clues to the nature of the creator.

In the end, scientific observations alone can give some solid clues in the forensics work of identifiying the nature of the Creator.

 

[tonyrey]

I am enumerating my questions because it will be easier for both of us to keep track of them

1. Can chemistry explain how the specific combination of molecules necessary for abiogenesis occurred out of an immense number of possibilities?
2. Did the survival of the first living organisms occur prior to reproduction?
3. Since you believe in both intelligent design and disembodied intelligences doesn’t that imply intelligence is independent of the body?
4. Are teachers never entitled to make cross-references to another subject? If not why not?
5. Do you believe your intelligence can function without your body? If not why not?
6. Is it fair to say you conceal your belief in disembodied intelligences even though your students probably assume disembodied intelligences are disproved by NeoDarwinism?
7. Do you believe the fundamental level of physical reality is that which is directly observable? If so why?
8. How can one preempt the claim that a designer could have made an object appear not to have been designed?
9. Is falsification always possible/necessary in science?
10. Why would intelligent causes mimic law and chance?
11. Why is it necessary to determine that it was impossible for an object to have been designed when science requires only an extremely high degree of probability rather than apodictic certainty?
12. Why are processes which lack intelligence a better explanation of your intelligent mind than intelligent Design?

 

[tonyrey]

I have always agreed that there is a chance element in evolution.

I am enumerating my questions because it will be easier for both of us to keep track of them

1. Can chemistry explain how the specific combination of molecules necessary for abiogenesis occurred out of an immense number of possibilities?
2. Did the survival of the first living organisms occur prior to reproduction?
3. Since you believe in both intelligent design and disembodied intelligences doesn’t that imply intelligence is independent of the body?
4. Are teachers never entitled to make cross-references to another subject? If not why not?
5. Do you believe your intelligence can function without your body? If not why not?
6. Is it fair to say you conceal your belief in disembodied intelligences even though your students probably assume disembodied intelligences are disproved by NeoDarwinism?
7. Do you believe the fundamental level of physical reality is that which is directly observable?
8. How can one preempt the claim that a designer could have made an object appear not to have been designed?
9. Is falsification always possible/necessary in science?
10. Why would intelligent causes mimic law and chance?
11. Why is it necessary to determine that it was impossible for an object to have been designed when science requires only an extremely high degree of probability rather than apodictic certainty?
12. Why are processes which lack intelligence a better explanation of your intelligent mind than intelligent Design?

 

[reggieM]

Can you quantify design? Dembski appears to have failed in this pursuit as his work is “riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others’ results.”

source

Talkreason.org is an anti-ID newsgroup so it carries its own biases. But more importantly, it’s very strange to hear scientists claim that since someone has “failed” to show something (which I do not agree with in this case), then the discussion should be ended. On what basis can it be said that “no one will ever be able to test for design”?

It would be quite interesting to hear scientists who claim that random processes can create microbiological machines and any imaginable thing in nature - also claim that it is “impossible” to develop parameters to detect and identify a designed system versus one created by an unintelligent, unconscious process.

That betrays the bias. Design exists. It is different than non-design. Order and symmetry exist – they are different that dis-order and chaos.

Clearly, an arrangement of objects in nature which conform precisely to a mathematical model is different that one that doesn’t. The cosmological constants that can be found in the universe cannot be explained by pure chance occurrences.

Dembski’s approach uses a study of probability and time. Certain levels of probability are so low that the chance of it happening is virtually zero. So, we would say that it is “not possible” for certain things to occur.

If chance is ruled out, design is the best, most reasonable explanation.

Chance is ruled out when one encounters a system that has a very remote probability of occuring by random chance alone.

But the filter implicitly defines the product of intelligent design as that which cannot be explained by regularity or chance–more negative reasoning.

As I explained above – there is a proposed solution of “chance”. That solution can be applied to any and everything in the world. A man is found with stolen property in his house. He says “it was an accident – all just dumb luck or chance”. Yes, but is that a good explanation? The alternative is “by design”.

Now you may have another alternative and that is fine.

But normally, when chance is ruled out as an option, there is really only one option left and that is purposeful design. What other chose would you propose?

… again, thanks for taking the time to investigate and learn about ID in more detail. Many will not read the counter-point of view, but you have – and that is admirable.

I think it’s important also to try to place God in this discussion – since you are a believer. ID is merely an extension of St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5th proof of the existence of God. So, it’s an ancient component of Catholic philosophy (it actually goes back to St. Paul).

 

[Michaelo]

Talkreason.org is an anti-ID newsgroup so it carries its own biases.

Just as the Discovery Institute has its own bias.

But more importantly, it’s very strange to hear scientists claim that since someone has “failed” to show something (which I do not agree with in this case), then the discussion should be ended. On what basis can it be said that “no one will ever be able to test for design”?

I don’t think scientists are calling for the discussion to end but rather are insisting that that which is used to incite discussion (which Dembski has tried to do with specified complexity) is free of errors in math, logic, etc. And again I don’t think scientists are saying that “no one will ever be able to test for design” but rather that the current methods proposed by ID advocates are inadequate.

Dembski’s approach uses a study of probability and time. Certain levels of probability are so low that the chance of it happening is virtually zero. So, we would say that it is “not possible” for certain things to occur.

And it is these conclusions that scientists contest the validity of.

But normally, when chance is ruled out as an option, there is really only one option left and that is purposeful design. What other chose would you propose?

But the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that no other alternatives exist. Your entire argument basically operates on the assumption that a dichotomy exists, yet this premise has not been thoroughly established.

… again, thanks for taking the time to investigate and learn about ID in more detail. Many will not read the counter-point of view, but you have – and that is admirable.

No problem as this topic fascinates me

 

[rossum]

I am enumerating my questions because it will be easier for both of us to keep track of them

Fine. I will add my own questions at the end.

1. Can chemistry explain how the specific combination of molecules necessary for abiogenesis occurred out of an immense number of possibilities?

Some yes, some no. Abiogenesis is a mixture of regularity and chance. Given that there is as yet not enough data about abiogenesis, it is probably not currently possible to put accurate figures on the ratio of the two. I am open to correction on this.

1. Did the survival of the first living organisms occur prior to reproduction?

Yes.

1. Since you believe in both intelligent design and disembodied intelligences doesn’t that imply intelligence is independent of the body?

The Buddhist analysis is into five parts: form (=body), feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. The other four can exist apart from form, as with some of the gods. Intelligence is not separately analysed in the Buddhist system.

1. Are teachers never entitled to make cross-references to another subject? If not why not?

To a limited extent. I was a teacher for five years. It was difficult enough to get the full curriculum fitted in without spending time on stuff that was not in the curriculum. There were other teachers much better qualified than me to teach the other subjects. This was in UK schools so there were Religious Education teachers on the staff. They didn’t teach Maths and I didn’t teach Religion.

1. Do you believe your intelligence can function without your body? If not why not?

See #3 above.

1. Is it fair to say you conceal your belief in disembodied intelligences even though your students probably assume disembodied intelligences are disproved by NeoDarwinism?

I never taught Biology, only Maths and Physics. Some of the older students (about 16 to 18) were aware that I was Buddhist.

1. Do you believe the fundamental level of physical reality is that which is directly observable?

Directly or indirectly observeble; we cannot directly observe quarks. The fundamental level of non-physical reality is also observable through meditation.

1. How can one preempt the claim that a designer could have made an object appear not to have been designed?

That is your problem. It is up to the ID side to provide a means to falsify their hypothesis. Dr Dembski identified a very real problem with an unknown designer of unknown powers. My example of the cylinder block relied on the archaeologist knowing what was, and what was not, possible for Palaeolithic designers to do.

1. Is falsification always possible/necessary in science?

Possible, yes. As of now, evolution has not yet been falsified.

1. Why would intelligent causes mimic law and chance?

Ask the intelligent cause in question.

1. Why is it necessary to determine that it was impossible for an object to have been designed when science requires only an extremely high degree of probability rather than apodictic certainty?

When you do the experiments just tell us what the limits of accuracy are. Standard scientific practice.

1. Why are processes which lack intelligence a better explanation of your intelligent mind than intelligent Design?

Because no scientific evidence has ever been shown to support the ID hypothesis. I can see elements of intelligence in the behaviour of animals, such as chimps. What was present in our ancestor can be amplified in ourselves. We observably have a much larger brain that the other hominidae.

I will number my questions from 50, in case you want to add any more questions of your own.

1. What scientific experiment can I perform in the lab to show the action of the designer(s)?
2. What observation can I make in the field to show the action of the designer(s)?
3. How could the Intelligent Design hypothesis be falsified?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

1. Can chemistry explain how the specific combination of molecules necessary for abiogenesis occurred out of an immense number of possibilities? Abiogenesis is a mixture of regularity and chance. Given that there is as yet not enough data about abiogenesis, it is probably not currently possible to put accurate figures on the ratio of the two.

But there are an immense number of possibilities at the outset?

2.* Did the survival of the first living organisms occur prior to reproduction?* Yes.

Then survival is the primary purpose of life not evolution or reproduction?

3. Since you believe in both intelligent design and disembodied intelligences doesn’t that imply intelligence is independent of the body? Intelligence is not separately analysed in the Buddhist system.

Do you believe intelligence cannot exist without the body?

*4. Are teachers never entitled to make cross-references to another subject? *
To a limited extent.

Then there is no reason why Design should not be referred to in a lesson on evolution?

*6. Is it fair to say you conceal your belief in disembodied intelligences even though your students probably assume disembodied intelligences are disproved by NeoDarwinism? *I never taught Biology, only Maths and Physics.

Would you conceal your belief in disembodied intelligences if you were teaching Biology?

1. Do you believe the fundamental level of physical reality is that which is directly observable?
   Directly or indirectly observable; we cannot directly observe quarks. The fundamental level of non-physical reality is also observable through meditation.

How are physical and non-physical reality related?

9. Is falsification always possible/necessary in science?
Possible, yes. As of now, evolution has not yet been falsified.

How could unDesigned evolution be falsified?

10. Why would intelligent causes mimic law and chance?
Ask the intelligent cause in question.

In other words you cannot think of a good reason for doing so. The hypothesis is simply a stratagem to evade the implications of the evidence for Design.

11. Why is it necessary to determine that it was impossible for an object to have been designed when science requires only an extremely high degree of probability rather than apodictic certainty?
When you do the experiments just tell us what the limits of accuracy are. Standard scientific practice.

Do you admit that only an extremely high degree of probability is required rather than apodictic certainty?
:

12. Why are processes which lack intelligence a better explanation of your intelligent mind than intelligent Design?
Because no scientific evidence has ever been shown to support the ID hypothesis. I can see elements of intelligence in the behaviour of animals, such as chimps.

How do you explain free will and moral responsibility in human beings? Do you believe chimps have free will and moral responsibility?

1. What scientific experiment can I perform in the lab to show the action of the designer(s)?

There is no need to go to the lab. You can design a lethal weapon to torture and kill people.

1. What observation can I make in the field to show the action of the designer(s)?

You can observe the magnificent beauty of nature and all the colours which are not necessary for survival.

1. How could the Intelligent Design hypothesis be falsified?

The Intelligent Design explanation would be falsified if :
(a) It could be shown to be unintelligible, inadequate, inconsistent, incoherent and improbable.
(b) The laws of nature ceased to hold good.
(c) Neurological research showed that free will and responsibility are illusions.
(d) NeoDarwinism fully explained the existence of human beings.
(e) Science fully explained all entities we believe to be immaterial.

 

[rossum]

(Q 1) But there are an immense number of possibilities at the outset?

Show me that mathematical model you are using to calculate the number of possibilities. Until there is an agreed model on which to base our calculations we are just picking numbers out of the air. That is a pointless exercise.

(Q 2) Then survival is the primary purpose of life not evolution or reproduction?

No. Reproduction is the primary purpose. Survival is a secondary purpose, as with the example of male spiders who are eaten by the female after mating or a peacock’s tail which is a help in reproduction but a hindrance for survival.

(Q 3) Do you believe intelligence cannot exist without the body?

Intelligence can exist without a material body.

(Q 4) Then there is no reason why Design should not be referred to in a lesson on evolution?

In general there is no reason. Where the alleged design is by proposed entities unsupported by any scientific evidence then it should not be referred to.

(Q 6) Would you conceal your belief in disembodied intelligences if you were teaching Biology?

No. But I would make it clear that those beliefs were not relevant to Biology.

(Q 7) How are physical and non-physical reality related?

Ask a philospher.

(Q 9) How could unDesigned evolution be falsified?

Didn’t you read the two Darwin quotes I gave earlier in my post #706 in this thread? There is also Haldane’s Devonian rabbit as a potential falsification.

(Q 10) In other words you cannot think of a good reason for doing so. The hypothesis is simply a stratagem to evade the implications of the evidence for Design.

I hardly think that Dr Dembski is employing such a strategem. He is the one who raised the possibility. Since ID is extremely reluctant to characterise the designer in any way you cannot exclude the possibility that the designer wants to mimic chance or regularity for amusement, to deceive us, just to show that it can be done or for reasons we do not understand. It is a real possibility, and one that the ID side has to deal with. Dr Dembski has this one right.

Because ID refuses to characterise its designer, for perfectly understandable political reasons, it has a problem with defining what the designer cannot do. We know what human designers can and cannot do, hence archaeology and forensic science. With a designer of unspecified powers that problem becomes much more difficult. Only if ID becomes more much specific in defining the powers and limitations of its proposed designer can the scientific falsification problem be solved. However, doing so will greatly increase the difficulties of ID’s political side. At the moment the political side seems to be winning out over the scientific side.

(Q 11) Do you admit that only an extremely high degree of probability is required rather than apodictic certainty?

All of science is a “very high degree of probability”. Every scientific measurement comes with error bars on it. ID will be allowed the same latitude. As a minimum work towards a 95% probability that a given measurement falsifies the hypothesis.

(Q 12) How do you explain free will and moral responsibility in human beings? Do you believe chimps have free will and moral responsibility?

All animals are responsible for their actions - remember that I am Buddhist. How is this relevant to whether or not ID is a plausible scientific theory? I know that there are things that evolution cannot currently explain, but that does not give ID a free pass. We cannot argue that because Christianity cannot explain the name of Cain’s wife, therefore Buddhism is right.

(Q 50) There is no need to go to the lab. You can design a lethal weapon to torture and kill people.

You have competely lost me here. Is the ID designer intent on torturing and killing people?

(Q 51) You can observe the magnificent beauty of nature and all the colours which are not necessary for survival.

I can see colours in nature, yes. What does this have to do with scientific evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer?

(Q 52) The Intelligent Design explanation would be falsified if :
(a) It could be shown to be unintelligible, inadequate, inconsistent, incoherent and improbable.

Those are just tautologies: the ID explanation would be false if the ID explanation was false.

(b) The laws of nature ceased to hold good.

No. You are falsifying the whole of science, not just ID. I need something specific that will only falsify ID, just as Darwin’s criteria only falsified evolution. You are trying to argue that ID is valid science, not that the whole of science is invalid.

(c) Neurological research showed that free will and responsibility are illusions.

No. ID claims that its designer can make material entities, such as the bacterial flagellum. You need to falsify a designer of material objects.

(d) NeoDarwinism fully explained the existence of human beings.

No. Remember that the designer(s) can mimic other processes. How can we exclude a designer who mimics Darwinian processes?

(e) Science fully explained all entities we believe to be immaterial.

No. If science found an immaterial designer then that would support ID, not falsify it. As for other immaterial objects, ones that are not the designer, ID claims that its designer can make material entities. You need to falsify a designer of material objects not just of immaterial ones. Again there is the “mimic” designer problem here.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

reggieM

*I think it’s important also to try to place God in this discussion – since you are a believer. ID is merely an extension of St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5th proof of the existence of God. So, it’s an ancient component of Catholic philosophy (it actually goes back to St. Paul). *

Who got it from Isaiah, who got it from Genesis. :bible1: :takeoff:

 

[tonyrey]

Part 1

(Q 1) Until there is an agreed model on which to base our calculations we are just picking numbers out of the air. That is a pointless exercise.

All animals are responsible for their actions - remember that I am Buddhist.There is ample scientific evidence that animals do not have sufficient intelligence to distinguish between right and wrong. We are looking for the best available explanation. In view of their immense importance free will, moral responsibility and the right to life require explanation. If they cannot be explained by unDesigned evolution it is seriously deficient .

(Q 50) There is no need to go to the lab. You can design a lethal weapon to torture and kill people.

You have completely lost me here. Is the ID designer intent on torturing and killing people?No but human beings have been given the freedom and the responsibility to choose what to design for good or evil purposes. As a Buddhist you must recognize this fact. This is an experiment which demonstrates design by an
intelligent designer the existence of whom is best explained by an Intelligent Designer

(Q 51) You can observe the magnificent beauty of nature and all the colours which are not necessary for survival.

I can see colours in nature, yes. What does this have to do with scientific evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer? You can see colours but you do not appreciate their significance. Undesigned evolution does not explain beauty nor colours because the beauty and colours of inanimate objects are not necessary for survival. The sky need not be blue. Grey would suffice - as we know only too well in England.

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

             Part 2

(Q 52) The Intelligent Design explanation would be falsified if :
(a) It could be shown to be unintelligible, inadequate, inconsistent, incoherent and improbable.

 

[tonyrey]

rossum;5296776:

Part 1
There is scientific evidence for Design. There is also scientific evidence that design necessitates a designer. Therefore it is unreasonable to deny that Design is supported by scientific evidence.

Correction: Therefore it is unreasonable to deny that a** Designer** is supported by scientific evidence.

 

[greylorn]

"greylorn:

ID proponents generally assume that the designer is necessarily the omnipotent, omniscient God of Christianity.

Why do you believe that?

This is an observation from personal experience, and from my occasional perusal of ID material. For example, Lee Strobel in “The Case for a Creator,” makes an excellent, detailed case in favor of I.D. If I recall correctly, he concludes his otherwise excellent book with the simpleminded declaration that Jesus Christ created the universe. Or God the Father. Or both. If the exact data regarding his printed conclusions will make a difference to you, I’ll kill an hour looking it up for you.

Michael Behe, who is IMO the best writer on the subject of ID, will not be well appreciated because he cannot explain his subject (microbiology) well enough for pinheads to understand it. He proves ID superbly. Closing his recent book, “The Edge of Evolution,” he makes the statement that his case for design does not specify the Designer.

He does not reference any material which does specify the Designer. The best he does is note that he, himself, is a “conventional Roman Catholic.”

I’m certain that you can draw the same inferences that I drew, since you are smarter and better educated. I figure that after reading Behe, Catholics will place copies of his books on their coffee tables next to “Brief History of Time” and the “Holy Bible,” and be done with it.

Then there is the evidence of omission. Do you know of a proponent of Intelligent Design (other than myself) who proposes a Designer who is not the omnipotent God of Christianity?
"greylorn:

The evidence in favor of design does not support such a conclusion.

Why do you believe that?

Classic Judeao-Christian beliefs are rooted in biblical lore. Conventional Christians often quote Genesis, which describes a six-day, pretty much finger-snap creation. (God said this and it was so. God said that and, etc. etc.) This traditional notion of a nearly instantaneous (compared to geological and evolutionary evidence) creation process is consistent with an almost-omnipotent God. (A fully omnipotent God would have done the job in a femtosecond or less.)

But I don’t need to quibble over terms. For the writers of the O.T., six days was pretty much the same thing as a femtosecond would have been had they been able to understand the spacetime concept of “second.”

Given their level of background knowledge, both Hebrew writers of Genesis (who lived and wrote during the Babylonian exile and whose Biblical tales have similarities to tales from Babylonian tradition) did a clear job of attributing creation to an awesome entity. It isn’t clear and never will be whether they regarded their Creator as omnipotent, or simply as the highest possible God. No matter. Christianity subsequently declared that they were referring to an omnipotent, omniscient God.

Now those learned good old boys may have been ignorant of things which high school students take for granted, but they were not stupid like most of our high school students. Six-day creation was their story for describing the actions of an omnipotent creator. Had they found as many dinosaur fossils as we have, had they built telescopes, cyclotrons, and thermonuclear bombs, they would have devised a different theory. (If you ask me why I believe that, our Q/A relationship ends.)

The real world evidence discloses a gradual “evolution” of life forms which occurred over a period of about 3.5 billion years. It shows complex critters designed, then discarded. It shows a process of change and development which by the standards of any U.S. engineering corporation (even G.M.) would be regarded as so slow as to be not even happening. (Can you imagine quarterly reports for the pleistocene era?)

Given that an omnipotent God could create a trillion universes complete with more diverse life forms than there are electrons in our little universe, doing so during the time you’ll need for a morning poo or afternoon beer, it seems unlikely that he’d have taken nearly four billion years to create the life forms on planet earth.

Therefore I conclude that life on planet earth was not created by an omnipotent God.

I know the ways of philosophers. I regard them as the spin doctors of human thought, and have occasional respect for individual practitioners but little for the field they represent. I’ve never gotten a straight answer from any one of them, but that’s okay, because “straight answers” are not part of their job description.

Kindly pretend that you are not a philosopher, and address this issue as if you are not my professor, not even my teacher. That aside, you have acquired considerable knowledge. So have I. Our spheres of knowledge are not the same, and may not even intersect significantly. But we seek (well, as least I can wish…) answers to questions which do not yet have good answers. If we can consider this question as two individuals seeking answers, rather than individuals already having answers, we might actually solve a real problem.