Pope's astronomer dismisses ID and says Church was "spectacularly wrong" in its treatment of Galileo

[wanstronian]

Definition of Intelligent Design

                                      What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

                  See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.
           
                                                **Is intelligent design the same as creationism?**

                                      No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an  effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature  acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product  of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected  process such as natural selection acting on random variations.  Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how  the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design  starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what  inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the  scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern  biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through  science is supernatural.                     
                 Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge  the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of  Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of  intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees  the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent  design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to  conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers,  it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit  intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design  is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who  wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the  merits of its case.                     
                                 
           
                                                **Is intelligent design a scientific theory?**

                                      Yes. The scientific method is commonly described  as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments,  and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that  intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).   Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it  will contain high levels of CSI.  Scientists then perform experimental  tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and  specified information.  One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible  complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally  reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of  their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity  in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Quoting a non-independent, ID-supporting website and stating that it’s scientific don’t make it so.

If you want to disagree with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, not to mention the head of the Catholic church, then go right ahead. As far as I’m concerned it’s just one more theistic delusion. If you’re incapable of admitting you’re wrong when faced with insurmountable evidence of the fact, then that’s your personality disorder, not mine.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Nice dodge. Did you even read the article I provided a link to? Galileo was under Church authority and that authority imposed a sanction. Just because nonbelievers choose to live outside of that authority does not make it invalid.

What does her car have to do with anything?

Once again: how many priests and nuns have you seen blocking entrances to science labs? You appear to live in a very black and white world. The people you know, and yourself, appear to believe you live in a perfect subset of the world. Your orthodoxy is showing.

The description is one I would think describes you perfectly. Your world is very black and white; very simplistic. Your proofs consist of “I was there!” and bouncing balls.

God bless,
Ed

 

[LittleSoldier]

(… continued)

The Science Council
“Intelligent Design is a creationist belief that suggests that the biological complexity of human beings is evidence for presence of a God or an ‘intelligent designer’. There are concerns that it is sometimes advanced as scientific theory but it has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations supporting it and it is not accepted by the international scientific community.” sciencecouncil.org/Creationism.php

The Royal Society
“[ID’s] supporter make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treat gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist - as if they were evidence for a ‘designer’. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not.”

Plus your Pope doesn’t believe in ID, I understand.

Is that enough authority for you, or do your own beliefs somehow trump the professional opinions of hundreds of thousands, not to mention the opinion of the head of the religion to which you claim affiliation?

Yes I have.

Yes, and I have mentioned the repeated debunking of Behe’s “Irreducible Complexity” bleat on this thread already. It seems I am supported by an overwhelming number of scientists and scientific bodies.

You lose.

Wow. I am very impressed by your presentation of the scientific organizations that do not consider ID a science. To be honest I haven’t spent much time learning about ID but it is clear that it does not belong in a science classroom.

Thank you very much for providing this information. It is greatly appreciated!!

 

[Betterave]

Right - so your ‘authority’ is the creationist body The Discovery Institute, which invented ID purely as a way to circumvent the laws that prevent superstition being taught in science classes. Sorry, I gotta say I think that my list of legitimate scientific organisations (incidentally representing an order of magnitude greater number of scientists than yours) probably trumps your list of pseudo-scientific kooks.

Ha ha!! I like it! How best to answer the criticism that no ID paper is ever published in a scientific journal? Set up a ‘scientific’ journal purely for the purpose of promoting ID as a science!! I wonder who it’s funded by…? Why, The Discovery Institute! What a surprise!!

The trouble is, IDers can spout pseudo-science all they like; they can set up pseudo-scientific journals funded by lying institutions till the cows come home. It might fool the hicks who already believe in all this nonsense, but it won’t fool anybody who actually knows anything. And it won’t get ID into the science class. BECAUSE ID IS NOT SCIENCE.

This is all just arrogant bluster, given that all you’ve done is quote a bunch of pseudo-authorities who obliquely invoke some unspecified, necessarily philosophical notion of “real science” (vs. “pseudo-science”) in an entirely vague, hand-waving, “trust us, we’re the experts, and don’t listen to them, they don’t know what they’re talking about”-way, just like you do. Not a very impressive argument, I’m afraid. There’s just no content in it.

 

[Betterave]

My “You’re entitled to your opinion” was in response to your “I think your post was misleading on this point.”

Correct. Your point?

Your objection was that my ‘purpose’ criterion was aimed at an organism level, but that “ID arguments… do not address purpose at the whole organism level…” So I pointed out that if you infer purpose at a sub-organism level, you must ultimately infer purpose at a higher hierarchical level, potentially ad infinitum, otherwise you are not actually explaining anything. Therefore, stating that the “purpose” criterion was badly aimed doesn’t actually change anything, unless you also propose that suborganism ‘purpose’ is mere whimsy on behalf of the intelligent entity.

**That **is simply a non sequitur. It’s just like saying that if natural selection doesn’t explain the existence of the chemical building blocks of life, then it doesn’t explain anything. That’s nonsense. You also completely misrepresent the intended import of ID arguments as being the attempt to explain the motivation of the designing intelligence, i.e., beyond the level of mere whimsy. Again, you seem clearly *not *to understand the position you are attacking (insofar as this is Behe’s).

And my response is also the same: I have identified two common, but different, aspects or defences of ID and show why they, in isolation, are either logically flawed or simply unscientific. It is you who have erroneously conflated two separate aspects of ID, despite my repeated clarification.

And unfortunately your still-the-same response still fails to address my point.

I can criticise whatever argument I see given as a defence of ID. Just because you claim to have a different view of ID, that doesn’t mean I’m forbidden from commenting on the other defences I see.

Of course, but your analysis isn’t very interesting if you call every ID argument simply “ID”. It’s just an excuse on your part for making vague sloppy arguments. If there are a number of different arguments that you want to refute, you should distinguish them and refute each one on its own terms. That they happen to fall under the same general rubric is no excuse for your sloppily referring to all of them simply by that one rubric.

As far as I’m aware he rests his case on the hypothesis of irreducible complexity, which, as I’ve already pointed out, has been debunked countless times. Not once has a single example of his been unexplainable by natural processes. And even if that were not true, simply claiming that something is irreducibly complex proves not a damn thing. It’s an argument from ignorance. “I can’t see how this happened naturally, therefore it didn’t happen naturally. Therefore there must have been a designer.”

“And even if that were not true…”? So which is it: true or not? Why don’t you pick one position, without hedging your bet, and then we can discuss that. I don’t want to waste my time if you’re just going to flip-flop on which criticism you actually want to go with.

I’ve already pointed out the flaws in Behe’s arguments upthread, I’m surprised you’ve been protesting on the grounds that I’ve misrepresented ID. Behe is the personification of empty rhetoric, all he ever does is assert that X or Y is irreducibly complex, assert that “evolution has limits,” then completely and utterly fail to fill his invented disconnect. He asserts “design,” but neglects to explain anything about the designer.

As above, we can discuss this, but please pick which argument you want to advance first.

I’ve done what I can. The “rules” of science aren’t official law, they don’t even seem to be written down somewhere. That doesn’t mean they’re not real. To criticise me simply because I can’t point to an immutable “Rules of science” book is just bad form on your part. ID is scientific only if you redefine science to accept supernatural non-explanations to fill gaps in your theory.

**That’s **a straw man. That was not at all the form of my criticism. You might want to try being a little more open-minded, then you might notice things like that.

 

[cassini]

Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe it referred to something specific. If you find the entirety of the astronomer’s comments, please share it with us so we may know.

All I know Marco is that the secular press just LOVE to give that man exposure. Recently he was given a lot of publicity in the BBC’s ‘Vatican’, shown while Pope Benedict XVI visited that country (a great success by the way). He went on about looking for ETs and how he would baptise the first one he met face to face. Watch out for the ET fraud, its hotting up, more and more exposure these days. Indeed the Devil may provide a few in time just to cause further chaos within Catholicism.

 

[wanstronian]

Let’s see the empirical, scientific proof that your list is “legitimate”.
First, study geology, astronomy, physics and biology and find the word “legitimate” there. Then find the accompanying “correct” definition of the term. Then find in the rocks and neutrons how to “correctly apply the term”.
Failing that, you offer an opinion. It has as much value as anyone wants to give it.
Scientists who are more highly credentialed than you are support ID as science.
Therefore, ID is science.
That argument from authority is pretty simple.

As above, your opinions are interesting, but they’re just based on your own philosophical biases and assumptions.

This is all just arrogant bluster, given that all you’ve done is quote a bunch of pseudo-authorities who obliquely invoke some unspecified, necessarily philosophical notion of “real science” (vs. “pseudo-science”) in an entirely vague, hand-waving, “trust us, we’re the experts, and don’t listen to them, they don’t know what they’re talking about”-way, just like you do. Not a very impressive argument, I’m afraid. There’s just no content in it.

You guys are hilarious. Really - there’s abundant, overwhelming evidence that ID is not considered ‘science’ by scientists, or by your pope. But no - your personal opinions are somehow more valid than this irrefutable evidence. You know better than all these scientists, you know better than the pope*. Silly old scientists, silly old popey - can’t they see the truth?

This lack of rationality is actually quite common in people - if the evidence doesn’t match your personal opinion, the evidence must be wrong (think homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki etc.). Sadly for you, the reality is very different - the evidence is what it is, it’s objective, publicly accessible and consistent. And by continuing to deny the FACTS, you just expose your closed-mindedness and lack of rational thought, for all to see. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

Still - we already knew that evidence is irrelevant to theistic belief - why should things change now?

I can’t see any point continuing in this thread - the ID arguments have been demolished again, and yet you continue to deny the facts. You’re wrong, but too arrogant to admit it. What’s the point in continuing to debate with people who’ll argue that black is white?

*Not that I think the pope provides a particularly good example of rational thought.

 

[reggieM]

Really - there’s abundant, overwhelming evidence that ID is not considered ‘science’ by scientists, or by your pope. But no - your personal opinions are somehow more valid than this irrefutable evidence.

'Irrefutable evidence"? Actually, I’m glad to hear that you think that non-scientific evidence can be irrefutable. That is an important point. I would like to know more about how you evaluate non-scientific evidence. For example, you read something by Pope Benedict, interpret it based on your own opinion, and then conclude that this is “evidence”.

Do you use the same approach when reviewing the evidence in favor of Christianity, for example? Or do you demand empirical evidence for those arguments … ?
In other words, it’s important to be consistent.

You know better than all these scientists, you know better than the pope*. Silly old scientists, silly old popey - can’t they see the truth?

I provided a list of scientists who believe ID is science. Now should we accept that scientific matters are settled by a popular vote? At the very least, if you accept that a majority view is evidence of the truth of something, then does the fact that a majority of people accept the existence of God mean that God does exist?

Basically, I think you’re looking for more certainty on this question than the evidence really allows.

Sadly for you, the reality is very different - the evidence is what it is, it’s objective, publicly accessible and consistent.

Scientists change their minds on matters all the time.

What’s the point in continuing to debate with people who’ll argue that black is white?

I don’t think it’s as simple as black and white. There are scientists who disagree with your view. Why should we not be free to accept the conclusions of those scientists?

 

[buffalo]

You guys are hilarious. Really - there’s abundant, overwhelming evidence that ID is not considered ‘science’ by scientists, or by your pope. But no - your personal opinions are somehow more valid than this irrefutable evidence. You know better than all these scientists, you know better than the pope*. Silly old scientists, silly old popey - can’t they see the truth?

This lack of rationality is actually quite common in people - if the evidence doesn’t match your personal opinion, the evidence must be wrong (think homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki etc.). Sadly for you, the reality is very different - the evidence is what it is, it’s objective, publicly accessible and consistent. And by continuing to deny the FACTS, you just expose your closed-mindedness and lack of rational thought, for all to see. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

Still - we already knew that evidence is irrelevant to theistic belief - why should things change now?

I can’t see any point continuing in this thread - the ID arguments have been demolished again, and yet you continue to deny the facts. You’re wrong, but too arrogant to admit it. What’s the point in continuing to debate with people who’ll argue that black is white?

*Not that I think the pope provides a particularly good example of rational thought.

Does design exist?

 

[wanstronian]

'Irrefutable evidence"? Actually, I’m glad to hear that you think that non-scientific evidence can be irrefutable.

Oh, don’t play silly games.

That is an important point. I would like to know more about how you evaluate non-scientific evidence. For example, you read something by Pope Benedict, interpret it based on your own opinion, and then conclude that this is “evidence”.

Do you use the same approach when reviewing the evidence in favor of Christianity, for example? Or do you demand empirical evidence for those arguments … ?
In other words, it’s important to be consistent.

The strength of the evidence needs to be proportional to the enormity of the claim.

I provided a list of scientists who believe ID is science. Now should we accept that scientific matters are settled by a popular vote? At the very least, if you accept that a majority view is evidence of the truth of something, then does the fact that a majority of people accept the existence of God mean that God does exist?

I finally had a look at that list. It doesn’t claim at any point that the signatories believe that ID is science. In fact it doesn’t mention ID at all. The signatories just claim that random mutation and natural selection are insufficient to explain the complexity of life. And they’re absolutely right - there’s more to the theory of evolution than these two factors. This is a common dishonest theist misrepresentation (or perhaps common ignorance) of evolutionary theory.

From Sandwalk:

…see how Meyer explains evolution to his mostly scientifically illiterate audience…he says, “What we want to address tonight is the question of whether or not the principle neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and selection is sufficient to produce the forms of life that we see.”

The scientific answer to this question is “no,” mutation and selection are not sufficient. You also need random genetic drift, speciation, and geological events such as meteor impacts and ice ages in order to account for life as we see it today. (That’s not an exclusive list, see Macroevolution.)

Meyer, and the next speaker, Richard Sternberg, are criticizing the ability of natural selection to explain the evolution of new forms in just a few million years. Most of their criticisms would apply to ALL explanations of evolution and not just those that rely only on mutation and natural selection but their arguments are much weakened by their lack of knowledge of modern evolutionary theory. It seems easy for them to knock down the strawman version of evolution that they don’t believe in.

If there’s a genuine scientific controversy here, you’ll never learn about it by listening to these IDiots.

So this particular aspect of your argument evaporates too.

Basically, I think you’re looking for more certainty on this question than the evidence really allows.

I’ve got as much certainty as I need to show that you’re categorically wrong.

Scientists change their minds on matters all the time.

Indeed. What’s that got to do with it? This sounds like desperate straw-clutching to me.

I don’t think it’s as simple as black and white. There are scientists who disagree with your view. Why should we not be free to accept the conclusions of those scientists?

You can, but you’re not. Instead, and unfortunately, you’re reading a statement that a subset of evolutionary theory is insufficient to explain the complexity of life, as an advocation of ID. This cherry-picking and blatantly dishonest misinterpretation of the facts just weakens your argument even further.

I’m completely bemused at how you continue to imply that your opinion is more valid than the hundreds of thousands of real scientists that disagree with you. It shows a tremendous arrogance. I don’t know whether to laugh at your ignorance, or despair at it. So far laughter is winning, but there’s a serious undertone that you might be propagating these lies to your children and/or other gullibles, rather than sponsoring rational thought. And that makes me sad.

 

[wanstronian]

Does design exist?

Ambiguous question, try again.

 

[reggieM]

I’m completely bemused at how you continue to imply that your opinion is more valid than the hundreds of thousands of real scientists that disagree with you. .

Again, this is science by popular vote. You continue to imply that your opinion is more valid than hundreds of real scientists who disagree with you. Those are scientists with more credentials in science than you have – so how can you form an opinion enough to disagree with them?

On that list that I provided, as I said “most” of them support ID. You will not find that fact from the list, but from reading ID material and seeing the names of scientists that support ID.

 

[buffalo]

Ambiguous question, try again.

That is a yes.

Next, how do we know something is designed when we see it?

 

[wanstronian]

Again, this is science by popular vote. You continue to imply that your opinion is more valid than hundreds of real scientists who disagree with you. Those are scientists with more credentials in science than you have – so how can you form an opinion enough to disagree with them?

I see you’re determined to ignore the multitude of scientists represented by the organisations I listed, and pursue your straw man of my solitary opinion vs those on the list you linked - despite the fact that I agree with the statement on the list and that it doesn’t ascribe a belief that ID is scientific, to any of its signatories.

I can’t really respond to the sort of dishonesty you’re exhibiting - all I can do is point it out in the vain hope you’ll do something about it. If you can’t - or won’t - then I’ll stop wasting my time. I believe you’re probably intelligent enough to know you’re wrong, despite your protestations.

On that list that I provided, as I said “most” of them support ID. You will not find that fact from the list, but from reading ID material and seeing the names of scientists that support ID.

That’s your claim, but the document doesn’t support it. So you won’t mind if I discount it as evidence.

Do you have anything else to offer, or are you going to continue relying on empty bluster?

 

[wanstronian]

That is a yes.

Next, how do we know something is designed when we see it?

Give me a break - the Argument from Ignorance doesn’t prove anything.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You know, last I checked my handy dictionary, ‘dishonesty’ is defined as deliberate falsification.

Now it strikes me that it is a very weak argument for a person to accuse others of ‘dishonesty’ as opposed to such morally neutral words like "mistake’ or ‘misunderstanding’ or simply being ‘wrong.’

But to accuse somebody of not being simply wrong (according to, say, wanstronian). . .to accuse them of being dishonest?

Well, young fellow me lad, I’m going to call you out on that one. You’re accusing some of my friends of being dishonest.

**Since you are making that claim on the basis of what has been posted by those you accuse, you show us exactly where those posts demonstrate a DELIBERATE FALSIFICATION on their part. IOW, you are accusing people of being DISHONEST. . .you show us that you, for your part, are correct in your accusations, or retract your statement and apologize and think about being a little less hasty in making your own judgments. **

 

[buffalo]

Give me a break - the Argument from Ignorance doesn’t prove anything.

Won’t give a rational answer will you?

 

[rossum]

Does design exist?

Yes. The Discovery Institute has carefully designed their concept of “Intelligent Design” to avoid the legal decisions against teaching Creationism in science classes in US public schools. The design also incorporates enough resemblance to real science to make it appear to many non-scientists that ID is actually scientific when in fact it is not.

DI ID is a very good example of something that is designed, and also deliberately camouflaged to be something it is not.

Unfortunately for the DI, their camouflage was not quite good enough and they lost as Dover. Since then they have basically dropped ID and moved on to “Teach the Controversy”, having manufactured a false controversy to start with.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Yes. The Discovery Institute has carefully designed their concept of “Intelligent Design” to avoid the legal decisions against teaching Creationism in science classes in US public schools. The design also incorporates enough resemblance to real science to make it appear to many non-scientists that ID is actually scientific when in fact it is not.

DI ID is a very good example of something that is designed, and also deliberately camouflaged to be something it is not.

Unfortunately for the DI, their camouflage was not quite good enough and they lost as Dover. Since then they have basically dropped ID and moved on to “Teach the Controversy”, having manufactured a false controversy to start with.

rossum

Since you are hones enough to acknowledge that design exists (the other guy won’t), how do we know it when we see it?

 

[reggieM]

I see you’re determined to ignore the multitude of scientists represented by the organisations I listed, and pursue your straw man of my solitary opinion vs those on the list you linked - despite the fact that I agree with the statement on the list and that it doesn’t ascribe a belief that ID is scientific, to any of its signatories.

Ok, you seem to be saying that there are no credentialed, legitimate scientists who support ID as science.

Again, I already posted a journal that features scientists who support ID.

Here’s David Abel and Kurt Thurston’s peer reviewed paper on the science of Intelligent Design:

tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
discovery.org/a/2640

You already saw the atheist, Bradley Monton who supports Intelligent Design:
Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design

Here’s an atheist/scientist who opposes Intelligent Design but argues that ID is legitimate scientific research:

csicop.org/si/show/design_yes_intelligent_no_a_critique_of_intelligent_design_theory_and_neocr/

However, Behe does have a point concerning irreducible complexity. It is true that some structures simply cannot be explained by slow and cumulative processes of natural selection. From his mousetrap to Paley’s watch to the Brooklyn Bridge, irreducible complexity is indeed associated with intelligent design.

Dembski is absolutely correct that plenty of human activities, such as SETI, investigations into plagiarism, or encryption, depend on the ability to detect intelligent agency.

… irreducible complexity is indeed a valid criterion to distinguish between intelligent and non-intelligent design …

Here’s a partial list of scientists supporting Intelligent Design

biologicinstitute.org/people/

So again, your opinion conflicts with scholars who are far more credentialed in science than you are.