The anthropic principles state that since we are here, no matter how improbable the emergence of life may be, we are here so it must have happened.
This is often used to support things like incredibly improbable abiogenesis scenarios and so on. yet it does nothing of the sort. To argue from results for a specific cause which cannot be demonstrated is the worst sort of fallacy.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The anthropic principles state that since we are here, no matter how improbable the emergence of life may be, we are here so it must have happened.
This is often used to support things like incredibly improbable abiogenesis scenarios and so on. yet it does nothing of the sort. To argue from results for a specific cause which cannot be demonstrated is the worst sort of fallacy.
Now hold on. The anthropic argument you're talking about would be a good argument if one had independent reason to reject the possibility of God.
I think you're misinterpreting what the anthropic principle is going for, here. I suspect it's something like this: for independent philosophical reasons, there is no God. Human life exists. Since there's no God, only one sort of event (abiogenesis) could have produced human life. Thus, however unlikely it might've been that abiogenesis would happen, it must have happened.
If you reject one of those premises (as I know you do), then that's your problem with the argument.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of Galloping Gerty's twins is still standing in New Hampshire, and I have driven over it several times, not without a little prayer to the deity of Tractor Beams.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I responded to a snippy one-liner with another. You made the first assertion; you could easily have added the text of your second post to the first to actually make your position clear.
Creationists constantly point to the "improbability" of the universe existing and proceeding in a manner that allowed for humans to come about. The anthropic priniciples say that even if it is "improbable," the mere fact of our existence is not evidence of a creator. The principles themselves are not used as evidence for one scenario over another. Furthermore, I'd love to know how you can be confident of the "incredible improbability" of abiogenesis scenario X, Y, or Z.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now hold on. The anthropic argument you're talking about would be a good argument if one had independent reason to reject the possibility of God.
I think you're misinterpreting what the anthropic principle is going for, here. I suspect it's something like this: for independent philosophical reasons, there is no God. Human life exists. Since there's no God, only one sort of event (abiogenesis) could have produced human life. Thus, however unlikely it might've been that abiogenesis would happen, it must have happened.
If you reject one of those premises (as I know you do), then that's your problem with the argument.
The anthropic principle requires us to also accept the current views of cosmology- eg finite universe. But if one accepts the premises in the first place(no creator, finite universe) then one automatically accepts abiogenesis and so the anthropic principle is just a bit of preaching to the choir. It doesn't actually mean anything.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Furthermore, I'd love to know how you can be confident of the "improbability" of abiogenesis scenary X, Y, or Z.
Like Twain said- there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. Creationists who argue as you said are attempting to invoke statistics (whish is already the worst sort of lie) on a non-existent data set. Doesn't seem very scientific to me.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: You know, statistics can be useful sometimes.
True enough. But the usefulness is in things like process control where one has solid data before and after changes etc. Using statistics like a gambling tool for philosophical or behavioral questions ("What are the chances that Kant was gay?") is ridiculous.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. But we should make sure they're scientists.
As defined by WHOM? What "law"? And keep in mind you have to defend the exclusion of ID without automatically excluding other theories that are similarly unproven such as Big Band and TONS of others.
quote:I don't understand why you're having a problem getting this concept, Chad.
I for one don't understand how why you are struggling with an open canon of science. It baffles me that you could be so close minded on something that claims to be so open. What fear is driving your opposition?
quote:Do you not understand why Intelligent Design is not in fact a scientific theory and should not be taught as science? That's been the point of the thread; it's been explained several times.
And Big Bang is science? Why is it science and ID not? Your Opinion? Some people who call themselves "scientists" opinion? Are you in reality simply struggling with the fact that there are SCIENTISTS and that they do in fact have THEORIES and EVIDENCE to support ID? Yes the majority are also religious, but are you discriminating against them because of that? Sounds like a Knee Jerk reaction.
Are you aware that there are some NON-Religious Scientists who support the theory of ID?
quote:I know you're late to the thread, so I'll ask quite bluntly whether you've actually read it or not.
In all honesty I've skimmed the thread, my intent was to answer the question of what is ID.
ID Theory is a science as much as the "BIG BANG" theory is. Neither are provable, both have evidence (although it appears the Religiophobes dismiss anything other than their own Scientific Beliefs)
Tell me WHY the "Big Bang" theory as completely unproven as it is, but as evidenced as it is, qualifies as science and the ID theory with it's basic Organizational evidences and chance Randomness evidences does not?
Or is it just I that finds humourous one side's close minded attempt to discredit the other using only their or the "majorities" belief in a theory or string of theories?
I smell a bit of intollerance with no logic behind it but quite a bit of Religiophobic feelings.
I propose someone PROVE to me that Big Bang is solid science and ID is not. Or are you all such Hardline "One Science View" only that if the science doesn't mesh with your scientific beliefs, it's not science?
It seems people are having a hard time with looking at scientific evidence from multiple view points. Your assuming if there is a guy with a bloody knife near a dead body with stab wounds that there is only ONE explanation for what happened. Yes, 9 times out of 10, that person is guilty, but I'm not willing to close my mind to the possibility of other explanations existing for what happened.
I've heard and seen religious Zealots, but the "one science only intollerant Zealot" is a new one for me.
Also, for the record. I do not endorse Religion being taught in a Science Class or "God" being the author of the universe as that crosses over into religion and dogma.
But ID whether it's a being, alien, entity, conscious dust cloud or whatever.
I'm willing to keep my mind open to wherever the science may lead.
Unfortunately alot of people appear to be approaching SCIENCE as if it was a DOGMATIC RELIGION and with the same zealous nature and intollerance and "judging by their own shared beliefs" what counts and what doesn't.
It's the Gay Marriage debate all over again with many of you taking stances you oppose in that issue.
posted
Also, by "debunking" ID, wouldn't you also "debunk" Big Bang? Or not? It's an honest question since we're all debating "what is science and what is not".
I think alot of the science zealots may need to check themselves before they take the majority of unproven science and theories and make them no longer science.
I think we're about to see a scientist debunk ID and at the same time remove Big Bang from the realm of science and place it intooo...I dunno...philosphy? theology? The all powerful God "Big Bang"!
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One difference that I can see off the top of my head is that the Big Bang theory can make predictions that can later be observed and verified. ID is not able to make predictions, thus making it hard to test.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: <----- specialized in process control in undergrad
I am truly, deeply sorry. I've heard that in most Western countries process control is reserved for repeat felony offenders. It says something about your pain threshold that you willingly chose it for yourself.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure, it's a good thing. But one shouldn't keep one's mind so open that one's brains fall out, eh?
I agree. I'm not talking about mixing theology and science. I'm talking about alternate forms of science (ID or whatever else other than the claimed Dogmatic beliefs of current science)
So, Einstein? Scientist or Creationist or Evolutionist or Pantheist? Part scientist or all scientist?
quote: But if one accepts the premises in the first place(no creator, finite universe) then one automatically accepts abiogenesis and so the anthropic principle is just a bit of preaching to the choir.
No, see, you don't have to automatically accept abiogenesis if one accepts those premises. That abiogenesis is the natural conclusion to a theory built on those premises is largely due to the application of the anthropic principle.
--------
quote: ID Theory is a science as much as the "BIG BANG" theory is. Neither are provable, both have evidence (although it appears the Religiophobes dismiss anything other than their own Scientific Beliefs)
What evidence do you have for ID, Chad? (And I draw the distinction here between evidence for ID and evidence against evolution; it's not the same thing, so merely poking holes in our current understanding of evolutionary theory doesn't count.)
And the reason the Big Bang theory is science, whereas ID is not, is that it's built on observed physical principles and makes falsifiable predictions.
quote: I'm talking about alternate forms of science (ID or whatever else other than the claimed Dogmatic beliefs of current science)
Chad, dude, you're missing the point. Science is about the process, not the conclusion. If ID followed a scientific process, it would be science. That ID is not science has nothing to do with what its dogmatic beliefs are, but rather the way those beliefs are reached.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:One difference that I can see off the top of my head is that the Big Bang theory can make predictions that can later be observed and verified. ID is not able to make predictions, thus making it hard to test.
You're confusing the EVIDENCES of the Big Bang theory being able to make predictions with the actual Big Bang theory itself. It's the evidences themselves which can make preditictions that can later be observed and verified and INTERPRETED by some to be evidence of Big Bang.
You can do the same with ID. You can take the stance that the universe is the result of an intelligent design through every element and infinite space, and find organization that is absolutely logical as evidence of this. You may look at the logic from the standpoint of "It just is" which is the answer science has for the unknown. With ID you can pull in mathematical data to support it. Chance algorithms (which can't scratch the surface of covering and compounding the actual chances yet).
And also one huge thing to point out. Science conflicts science. Does that make it invalid? Because one unproven scientific belief or many contradicts another unproven scientific belief, does that make one valid and one not.
Yes, if you're close-minded and intollerant. (which we all are in one area or another)
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: No, see, you don't have to automatically accept abiogenesis if one accepts those premises. That abiogenesis is the natural conclusion to a theory built on those premises is largely due to the application of the anthropic principle.
Hmmm... I see it the other way round. If one begins with the assumptions stated then abiogenesis is a necessary conclusion. The anthropic principle is just a silly bit of sophistry meant to counter the silly bit of sophistry from the other side about the chance of life appearing being one in a trillion trillion or whatever.
The worst of it is, the anthropic principle is exactly as mind numbing as the arguments and ascience that the other side is always accused of. Opponents of ID say that it evades the question by saying that anything complicated was done by a creator, but doesn't the anthropic principle do exactly the same thing? It argues from results that "It doesn't matter how improbable abiogenesis is; we are here so it must have happened." Two sides of the same coin, in my opinion.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
[quote]Chad, dude, you're missing the point. Science is about the process, not the conclusion. If ID followed a scientific process, it would be science. That ID is not science has nothing to do with what its dogmatic beliefs are, but rather the way those beliefs are reached. [quote]
You're confusing Religion and ID. If you can't distinguish between the two, then you misundersand ID entirely. The trail of Logic for ID is the same as it is for Science and it undoubtedly arrives at the same point, but with a different answer.
Science you're espousing says the universe is a naturally randomly occuring result of infinite subsequent and continuing random events structured around infinite subsequent and continuing physical laws that govern every infinite to grand aspect all existing and predicated indefinately on "It just is".
ID removes the randomness and says the laws have an intelligent source whatever that may be. That somewhere there was a beginning, but that it wasn't random, it was caused. Who, what, how, why, etc. is all "unknown" as it is with.
Multi-dimensional theories. Multiple Timeline theories. E=mc2. Time Travel. Quantum Physics.
Science? Science Fiction or what?
I'm recommending we don't "close the book" on scientific evidences based on biased beliefs.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Opponents of ID say that it evades the question by saying that anything complicated was done by a creator, but doesn't the anthropic principle do exactly the same thing? It argues from results that "It doesn't matter how improbable abiogenesis is; we are here so it must have happened." Two sides of the same coin, in my opinion.
ID doesn't say it was created. It's theories say that it may be the result of a principle designed creation. A conciousness instead of an unconcious random infinite event (or finite, the scientific community can't decide if it ever started or is infinite, although they look at the same evidence. Maybe their both wrong, that's a question I'm leaving open, other's not.)
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You can take the stance that the universe is the result of an intelligent design through every element and infinite space, and find organization that is absolutely logical as evidence of this.
*blink* Do you think the universe is "absolutely logical?"
-----
Actually, Jacare, ID is a form of the anthropic principle; it's basically a restatement of the Strong version. The Weak version -- which says that we must have beaten the odds, since we plainly exist -- is still not quite tautological. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Science you're espousing says the universe is a naturally randomly occuring result of infinite subsequent and continuing random events structured around infinite subsequent and continuing physical laws that govern every infinite to grand aspect all existing and predicated indefinately on "It just is".
I don't know where you're getting this, but I've never read about nor heard of a mainstream scientific theory that makes any of these claims. Certainly not evolution.
There are theories of quantum cosmology, at this point highly speculative and untested, that make claims like this. But even the people who've proposed these theories don't put much stock in them.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But he was also struck by the radiant beauty, the harmony, the structure of the universe as it was accessible to reason and science. In describing these factors he sometimes uses the word God, and sometimes refers to a divine reason, spirit or intelligence. - Einstein
So Einstein is OUT of the classroom. He's not a scientist and the ACLU should sue any school district/college that mentions his name since he didn't rule out ID.
quote:So Einstein is OUT of the classroom. He's not a scientist and the ACLU should sue any school district/college that mentions his name since he didn't rule out ID.
Einstein did rule out the "theory" that is now being called Intelligent Design, which includes among its tenets that the universe is only a few thousand years old. This is contradicted by both of the cosmological theories that Einstein accepted: the static universe (early in his life) and the Big Bang (which he later came to accept).
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Serious threads should have periodic quizzes that you have to answer before you're allowed to post or continue posting in order to show that you've read and understood what has already been written.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:ID removes the randomness and says the laws have an intelligent source whatever that may be. That somewhere there was a beginning, but that it wasn't random, it was caused. Who, what, how, why, etc. is all "unknown" as it is with.
I think most of the people that have posted here have agreed that ID is a 'why' question and theories like evolution is a 'how' question. They don't necessarily have to contradict each other since they are explaining different things (why versus how). Because they are addressing different questions, they should be viewed as different fields of study. No one is trying to say that there wasn't some type of initial cause, just that the cause should not be confused with the process.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
CStroman, although I'd agree that there is strong intolerance of religion, I was hoping for something in the way of sci evidence for ID.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think the universe is "absolutely logical?"
Do you believe you can take one hydrogen atom and attach 2 oxygen atoms to it and get something other than water?
Why not?
quote:Einstein did rule out the "theory" that is now being called Intelligent Design, which includes among its tenets that the universe is only a few thousand years old.
That's absolutely false. You need to learn the difference between RELIGION and INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Religious Dogma attaches dates.
Learn the difference between RELIGION and INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
quote:I think most of the people that have posted here have agreed that ID is a 'why' question and theories like evolution is a 'how' question.
Most people who are ANTI-ID and don't understand it say that. ID is absolutely HOW.
Again, you need to learn the difference between ID and Religious Dogma.
Until you understand the basic differences you're making alot of false claims.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So Einstein is OUT of the classroom. He's not a scientist and the ACLU should sue any school district/college that mentions his name since he didn't rule out ID.
Wait a sec. Your argument is that Einstein isn't a scientist because he thought the world was beautiful?
quote: That's absolutely false. You need to learn the difference between RELIGION and INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Religious Dogma attaches dates.
*giggle* If this forum had .sig files, I would use this quote.
quote: Most people who are ANTI-ID and don't understand it say that. ID is absolutely HOW.
Really? Perhaps I misunderstand ID, then. How does ID say the Creator -- who or whatever that Creator is -- made mankind? It may be that I've just completely missed that part of the "theory."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Again, you need to learn the difference between ID and Religious Dogma.
I am a pretty religious person, so that may be why my perspective of ID may be a little skewed. There haven't been many people supporting ID on this thread, so many of us may be thinking of different things than you are. I had just assumed that ID was saying that the Why caused the How, and that was it. I apologize if I've missed or didn't understand your explanation of ID.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:CStroman, although I'd agree that there is strong intolerance of religion, I was hoping for something in the way of sci evidence for ID.
How hard of evidence are you looking? Are you willing to use the same standard for every theory considered science today? Seriously?
Something tells me you are looking for "proof" (which is rare in alot of science) and will dismiss evidences that you don't agree with.
I mean come on people. The basic theory of ID is that the universe is the result of Intelligent Design. That's it. Simple. All you have to do is look at the billions of proven laws and order and organization that exists in the universe (that we know about thus far) from grand to small and that is HUGE evidence for it (unless you have already made up your mind against it and accepted into your heart "accepted science" as your personal savior and closed your mind to anything that differs) the possiblilites are endless. Divine Design is just one of many theories, all unproven, and it seems to me that it's the Religiophobes that are against it because they can't make the distinction between established Religion (which the vehemently oppose) and Intelligent Design.
I happen to believe that what Einstein saw in the law and order of the universe being NOT random but intelligently designed as being perfectly suitable for science classes.
He may be wrong, he may be right. We really don't know and I'm not willing to rule it out due to intollerance.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whoa, hold on. Do you take the theory of ID to be compatible with the Big Bang?
I don't see why they can't be compatible. Some force caused the Big Bang and directed certain laws to be the way they are. I don't recall the Big Bang theory implying that the laws of the universe had to have been completely random. But I do admit that my knowledge of both ideas is limited.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The basic theory of ID is that the universe is the result of Intelligent Design. That's it. Simple. All you have to do is look at the billions of proven laws and order and organization that exists in the universe (that we know about thus far) from grand to small and that is HUGE evidence for it....
Um....Why? What are you comparing this universe against as a control, Chad?
quote: We really don't know and I'm not willing to rule it out due to intollerance.
What you appear to have missed, Chad, is that the theory of evolution does not in fact rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design. In fact, if ID is true, it will almost certainly become part of evolutionary theory.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But he was also struck by the radiant beauty, the harmony, the structure of the universe as it was accessible to reason and science. In describing these factors he sometimes uses the word God, and sometimes refers to a divine reason, spirit or intelligence. - Einstein
So Einstein is OUT of the classroom. He's not a scientist and the ACLU should sue any school district/college that mentions his name since he didn't rule out ID.
Forget that mentallity.
Who are you quoting here? The format implies that you are quoting Einsein, but the quote is clearly speaking about someone other than the person being quoted. I'm not aware that Einstein was accustomed to speak of himself in the third person.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean come on people. The basic theory of ID is that the universe is the result of Intelligent Design. That's it. Simple.
In that case, I don't see how this conflicts with any theory that kids are being taught in school. It's certainly compatible with evolution. Why, if this is all there is to ID theory, do its advocates get upset about evolution being taught?
quote:I happen to believe that what Einstein saw in the law and order of the universe being NOT random but intelligently designed as being perfectly suitable for science classes.
I don't think Einstein would use the word "science" to describe this facet of his thought. He would probably have called it philosophy.
I'm not sure where you're getting this randomness stuff. Is it supposed to be part of the scientific world view? At no point in all my years of studying physics has anyone, teacher or professor, said "The universe is random."
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He uses "randomness" because if you took out the strawmen, self-victimization, and hurling of epithets from his posts he'd have almost nothing left to say. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My guess is that he's encountered some people that very strongly (and mistakenly) believe that Evolution proves that there was no cause. I think he's arguing against those people, not us.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And no, I don't think teaching these spiritual views of Einstein is appropriate in a science class. No more appropriate than Dawkins's opinion that evolution shows the universe is godless and uncaring. These sorts of opinions aren't science.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In that case, I don't see how this conflicts with any theory that kids are being taught in school.
It doesn't conflict, but people don't want it taught due to the "it opens the door" arguement. (that has been used against Homosexuality in School, Sex Ed in school, Fire arm safety classes in school, etc. etc. ad naseum)
quote:It's certainly compatible with evolution. Why, if this is all there is to ID theory, do its advocates get upset about evolution being taught?
I dunno, one has really nothing to conflict with the other. I do have a problem where someone starts attaching religious dogma to ID in the classroom due to the Supreme Courts wall dividing Church and State (a different discussion). That's where I think the discussion should end. The minute you start to reference religion, it's then out of the realm of science and now part of religion. There could be science used within religion, but not the other way around.
If some student asks how Einstein viewed the universe, I don't think the teacher should NOT be honest and say that he, as a scientist, looked at it all (that he could fathom) and logically arrived at a conclusion that the theory of intelligent design had at least some merit.
quote:What you appear to have missed, Chad, is that the theory of evolution does not in fact rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design. In fact, if ID is true, it will almost certainly become part of evolutionary theory.
It very well may. I don't see why not. ID and Evolution are completely compatible. Evolution and Religious Dogma on the other hand....
I think that alot of Religious people are mis-interpretting ID as more than just the suggestion of intelligent design, but actually THEIR intelligent design. That is their "belief" and may or may not be supported by science (more often NOT).
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CStroman: How hard of evidence are you looking? Are you willing to use the same standard for every theory considered science today? Seriously?
Something tells me you are looking for "proof" (which is rare in alot of science) and will dismiss evidences that you don't agree with.
posted
I'm amused people are still debating with chad, for a few reasons:
1) he's completely mischaracterized science education. That Einstein was religious, or thought his theories illustrated the existence of God philosophically does not mean any of his scientific theories should be tossed out of a science classroom.
2) he's not even bothering to try to show ID is somehow scientific. He just says things like
quote:If some student asks how Einstein viewed the universe, I don't think the teacher should NOT be honest and say that he, as a scientist, looked at it all (that he could fathom) and logically arrived at a conclusion that the theory of intelligent design had at least some merit.
Which is misconceived on several levels. First, because Einstein was a scientist does not mean all his personal beliefs were reached scientifically. Just because Einstein believed it doesn't make it science. Second, I don't know of anyone who's taken a decent high school physics class that hasn't heard the famous quotation "God does not play dice with the universe" -- relating to Einstein's philosophical problems with the fundamental uncertainty suggested by quantum mechanics, which severely undermines chad's implication a teacher would mislead a student about Einstein's religious beliefs and how they influenced what he thought was true in science.
3) he's clearly repeatedly missed what other people have painstakingly pointed out in their posts about the nature of science vs the nature of philosophy, and his inability to distinguish the two makes arguing with him about what has a place in the science classroom of little value.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It doesn't conflict, but people don't want it taught due to the "it opens the door" arguement.
Hm. That's not why I don't want Intelligent Design taught as a scientific theory. In fact, it's not why any of the people who've expressed that opinion on this thread have said they hold that opinion.
Tell you what. Why don't you try telling me why we said we didn't want ID taught as science? I'd like to see if you understood what we were saying.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this discussion, I'd still just be happy with quantitative evidence for ID.
==
Some other things I want discussed in science classrooms, besides ID: phrenology, Lamarckian evolution, phlogiston (great theory, but also very simply disproved), and the scientific consensus things of eugenics, anthropogenic global warming, and the 1800's rejection of sanitary practices in hospitals.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Chad, I, for one, welcome your views here.
I agree that arguing with you seems rather fruitless, so instead of arguing, I would like to ask some questions. (Anyone versed in ID can answer these, not just Chad. I think if even some of these were answered it would really help Will in his quest.)
quote: The basic theory of ID is that the universe is the result of Intelligent Design. That's it. Simple.
What is Intelligent Design?
The word 'Intelligent' implies intelligence to me. I am only aware of intelligence as an attribute of mind. Is there a mind (or Mind) involved here? If so, does it have any other qualities other than intelligence? Is it aware? Is it alive? Does it have senses? Does it have a body? Is it part of our time-space continuum or outside it? Is it present? Does it communicate? Does it err? Is it a 'spirit' of some sort?
The word 'Design' implies to me some sense of purpose, or 'fitness.' If the universe is the result of Intelligent Design (or any 'design' whatsoever) does that mean it has a purpose? What is the universe for? Or what do you think the Intelligent Designer thinks it is for?
Is Intelligent Design an event? A process? Did it just happen once, and now we are living with the results? Or is it ongoing?
Does Intelligent Design operate by a force of some sort? Is it a measurable force? Is it detectable? Is it 'powerful'? Is it fallible? Will it ever run out? Could the Intelligent Designer have, if it so chose, picked different values, say for the atomic weight of the various elements, or different laws of probability to rule chance, or a different value for pi? If so, is there any indication, or any statement in the ID theory, as to why the values we are familiar with were chosen?
Is it part of the Design for us to discover the hand of the designer? Or were we not supposed to discover it? Or does the Designer not care? Does the theory say anything about this? How would one go about finding out?
quote:All you have to do is look at the billions of proven laws and order and organization that exists in the universe (that we know about thus far) from grand to small and that is HUGE evidence for it ...
What type of proven law? Can you give two or three examples (out of billions)? (Do you mean, like gravity? The laws of thermodynamics?...)
Can I point to any proven law, and say, look there, obviously Intelligent Design occurred? Is there a kind of proven law I might point to (for example, the tendency of kidnap victims held for a long time to identify with their captors, the so-called Stockholm Syndrome) where you (or perhaps an expert in ID) would say, "no, that particular law is not evidence of ID."
Is really only ONE strong enough piece of evidence enough? It would seem so. If even ONE instance of Intelligent Design could be demonstrated, that would be sufficient, right?
Sufficient for what, though? I would wonder about things that didn't seem to be the result of an Intelligent Designer. Things that seemed like mistakes, or disasters, bad ideas and stupid things, bad people, extinctions, accidents, genocide, etc. Does Intelligent Design extend to every facet of every part of the universe, from the macro the micro, across all time? Or is it only responsible for certain parts?
Beyond 'proven laws', what sort of 'order and organization' is evidence of Intelligent Design? Can you give an example?
What if something didn't at first seem to be ordered or organized, but then later (perhaps by looking at it with different instruments or different analytical tools or whatever) it turns out it does have some really impressive order or organization. Would it not be evidence for ID beforehand, but would then become evidence for it after?
If I wanted to become a proponent of Intelligent Design, and convince other people too, I'd like to know what sorts of order and organization I should be citing as evidence. Not 'organized crime' of course, that's too silly. Not synchronized swimming, probably, even though that has order, though not when my nieces do it. How about a honeycomb? Bees make this wonderful ordered structure, it's very efficient and marvelous. Is that an example? How about music? There is an order and organization to tonal harmonies, wavelengths of sound, etc. Is this from Intelligent Design?
I have gotten the impression from various things that you have said that accepting ID would imply accepting some kind of 'new' definition for science and scientific thinking. Is this about right? If so, can you give an example of how science might be different, or done differently, or taught differently, if it adopted concepts from ID?
For example, in science now, if I want to test a hypothesis that A causes B in C, I might do various experiments, such as:
Add A to C, and see if B occurs
Remove A from C, and see if B disappears
Add things similar to A to C, and see if effects similar to B occur
Formulate theories as to HOW A has this effect; and do similar experiments, focusing on just certain vectors or pathways
...and so forth.
In let's call it ID-science, would this type of approach be different? For example, let's say 'B' is some sort of proven 'law' or 'order' or 'organization' of 'C'. Let's say 'A' is some physical effect or influence. If I propose the theory 'A causes B in C' in an ID-science lab, would I be dismissed, because obviously the effect B is caused by Intelligent Design?
It sounds like the new type of science you are proposing is much easier, but also a little confusing. It sounds like ID-scientists would be able to just say "you can investigate THIS using conventional experimental methods, but you don't need to investigate THIS OTHER THING because clearly it is from Intelligent Design."
Would there be any distinguishing pattern between the two types of things or approaches? Would ID-scientists go to some kind of ID-university in order to learn how to make those distinctions?
Or would EVERYTHING be studied using conventional methods, but the results would then be submitted to some ID-authority?
Or would scientists just KNOW that they had found a new evidence for Intelligent Design, by when they got to a dead end in their research? "I don't know how this works, it must be more ID." How would you know they weren't just a lazy scientist?
Or perhaps the opposite: maybe ID-science is not analytical. Maybe ID-scientists aren't even supposed to be interested in solving problems or answering questions or building knowledge. Maybe you can be an ID-scientist just by using belief rather than reason?
quote:...unless you have already made up your mind against it and accepted into your heart "accepted science" as your personal savior and closed your mind to anything that differs) the possiblilites are endless.
I am curious about the endless possibilities. Are they really truly endless? Does this mean that we'll never comprehend the ultimate complete truth? (That's true of conventional science, too.) Or does it mean the types of evidence that prove the existence of Intelligent Design are endless?
quote:Divine Design is just one of many theories, all unproven, and it seems to me that it's the Religiophobes that are against it because they can't make the distinction between established Religion (which the vehemently oppose) and Intelligent Design.
Now I am quite confused again. Are you saying there are several 'flavors' of ID theory? One of which is that the Intelligent Designer has a 'divine' nature? And that there are others?
I very much want to understand the distinctions among these. What other theories are there besides 'divine' and 'non-divine'? What makes something divine? How do the ID-scientists plan to ever determine which theory is correct? Do they even have a hunch? Or are there a bunch of squabbling factions? (Believe me, this happens in conventional science, too.)
Surely with all this endless evidence, there must be some idea. Here's a thought: if some of the evidence for ID is found to be something bad (e.g., killed innocent people) -- like, let's say the Black Plague was part of Intelligent Design because it was part of a 'proven law' of population regulation -- then that might be evidence against a 'divine' version. What do you think? I don't mean the theory, but the general approach -- is that a sort of investigation that might be undertaken?
I'm a little afraid your answers to almost all of this will be something like "Could be anything! We'll never know! Things aren't provable in conventional science either, so why look for things to be provable with ID!"
That's ok. But you ARE making assertions... I'm just trying get a better handle on what the assertions are, how detailed are they. Are there things you are quite sure of? Are there things that are just suspected? Things that are just noted as a possibility, but without any strong indication one way or the other? Which is which? And is there any kind of a system or approach by which two people might independently arrive at the same answers?
Or is the primary distinguishing feature of the 'new' kind of science that accepts Intelligent Design, that it accepts all 'theories' as equally plausible, and as welcome additions to the marvelous panorama of human knowledge, irrespective of whether they can be defined, observed, tested, improved, taught, debated, compared, deduced from, practically applied, predicted, or understood?
Thanks in advance for your time.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
