design theory defeats itself

[katherine the great]

I ask once again,

Please define *science*, and how it is distinguished from philosophy for our discussion on relegating ID to philosophy classes rather than science classes.

==Why can we not discuss evolution in the philosophy classes rather than the science classes==

Are you saying that philosophers cannot have theories, they cannot pose hypotheses?

I do not see how your post addresses my question.

Thanks.

If you don't know what science is, I really don't understand why you are even participating in this discussion.

[cdowis]

>(which is one of the most widely accepted of all scientific theories)

You really ought to read a good book on the history and philosophy of science. With such knowledge, you would come to realize that such a statement is completely meaningless.

>If you don't know what science is, I really don't understand why you are even participating in this discussion.

I ask a question on how science is distinguished from philosophy. Your response (or lack thereof) demonstrates a profound ignorance on the issues involved.

So, may I suggest that we simply ignore each other's posts.

Anyone else willing to discuss why ID should be confined to the philosophy class?

[katherine the great]

Anyone else willing to discuss why ID should be confined to the philosophy class?

Please explain exactly what is scientific about ID.

(just for the record, I am an active LDS who believes in God, and also believes in evolution and does not consider ID a scientific theory)

[Knight who says Ne]

The same scientific evidence that suports the scientific THEORY of evolution also supports the scientific THEORY of intelligent design. The significant difference is that evolutiuon relies solely on pure chance - which if true would be a violation of the science of odds - while intelligent designs removes chance from the equation. Those totally opposed to the teaching of intelligent design (in science, philosophy or otherwise) are just biased against anything that smells of religion.

Can anyone say athiesm as the new state religion?

[Makarios]

I believe Utah Gov., Jon Huntsman Jr., said he has no problem if ID is taught in school, but that it belongs in a philosophy class and NOT a science class.  I agree with him.

Should archeology and criminology also be taught in a philosophy class rather than as sciences? Both of these fields rely on detecting intelligence and distinguising it from natural occurences: Is this an arrowhead carved by native Americans, or is it just an interesting rock? Was this person murdered or was the death a natural occurence? There are scientific means of determining these things. SETI is another scientific enterprise interested in detecting intelligence.

It is only when the science of design is applied to human origens that the scientific community is up in arms about it and wants to relegate it to 'philosophy' or 'religion.' Why is that?

[spinner]

The same scientific evidence that suports the scientific THEORY of evolution also supports the scientific THEORY of intelligent design.

[ScriptureLover]

CDowis:

Anyone else willing to discuss why ID should be confined to the philosophy class?

Kerry:

Yes. Because ID is NOT proveably false. Falling back on an Intelligent Creator when nothing else works is simply unproveable and NOT falsifiable, hence it ain't science. I agree, put it in a philosophy class, but not as science, since ID is NOT science. Nothing in the ID underlying view is falsifiable, especially that an intelligence created. HOW is that falsifiable? Just curious is all..........

[katherine the great]

The same scientific evidence that suports the scientific THEORY of evolution also supports the scientific THEORY of intelligent design. The significant difference is that evolutiuon relies solely on pure chance - which if true would be a violation of the science of odds - while intelligent designs removes chance from the equation. Those totally opposed to the teaching of intelligent design (in science, philosophy or otherwise) are just biased against anything that smells of religion.

Can anyone say athiesm as the new state religion?

I disagree. I'm not an atheist (In fact I believe very deeply in God), and I'm opposed to teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in schools because it isn't science. What scientific evidence supports intelligent design? God is a matter of faith--not science. You can't prove God through science. It can't be done, and it shouldn't be taught as science. I personally believe that God created us through evolution, but I don't believe that that belongs in science class.

[Makarios]

What scientific evidence supports intelligent design?

You can start here

[ScriptureLover]

Dembski has been refuted in Robert T. Pennock's "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism," MIT Press, 2000........... For more information see here:

http://www.msu.edu/%7Epennock5/

Best,

Kerry

[Makarios]

Dembski has been refuted in Robert T. Pennock's "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism," MIT Press, 2000........... For more information see here:

http://www.msu.edu/%7Epennock5/

Best,

Kerry

Pennock has been refuted.........For more information see here: http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/pennockreview.htm

Best,

Alan

[ScriptureLover]

Knight:

evolutiuon relies solely on pure chance

Kerry:

It absolutely does not rely SOLELY on chance. My goodness, some reading is in order here, and not in the silly Scientific Creationist propaganda either................ random variation may be be the raw material of change, but as anyone who has bothered to learn about HOW evolution works, it is natural selection that builds good design by rejecting most variants while including and accumulating those variants that improve adaptation to whatever local environment the organisms are living in.

[sidewinder]

The only way to believe in "intelligent design" is to ignore the origin of the designer

True. But there should be other objections to ID as well. Drawing the SETI analogy (I think there was a thread on this), we wouldn't be constrained to explain the origins of the authoring alien civilization immediatly upon concluding that a signal sent through space is designed.

...paradox..

It's not a paradox, it's an infinite regress.

..flawed in that it attempts to impose on the intelligent designer, God, the same rules..

..One could argue that the Intelligent Designer is indeed complex, but that He did not need to be created...

One could also argue that the complexity in life forms IDers rule as designed is self-existing. A scenario that would be one degree simpler than a universe with a God.

It purports to prove that "evolution" (whatever that is) is wrong and that Genesis is correct

It's not quite that bad. It isn't suppose to be young earth creation and some IDers accept common decent.

2. ID proports to provide an explanation of certain phenomena for which evolutionary theory is at present unable to provide a satisfactory or complete explanation.

No it doesn't. It doesn't attempt to explain anything which is one of its main failures as anything that could ever be interesting to scientists.

Sorry, ID does directly contradict evolution.

True. If it didn't, it would go from being pointless to utterly and hopelessly pointless. Assuming we're talking about Darwinian evolution.

You really ought to read a good book on the history and philosophy of science. With such knowledge, you would come to realize that such a statement is completely meaningless.

Can you give an example of a book on the philosophy of science that considers evolution to NOT be one of the most widely accepted scientific theories?

[katherine the great]

What scientific evidence supports intelligent design?

You can start here

This link provides no scientific evidence whatsoever. In a nutshell it says that there is a science to proving whether something is manmade or created, and that all life falls under the category of something created. How scientific is that? I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. I agree with the poster who said that random mutation is a very small part of evolution and that natural selection is really the machine that drives it.

Also, what possible purpose would God have to guide every step of evolution? Why would He purposely make so many dead end species? It makes more sense to me that God let nature take it's course, and that we (humans) are the most Godlike product of this process, and therefore His favorite creation.

[Makarios]

This link provides no scientific evidence whatsoever.

Here's the scientific part, in case you missed it:

In determining whether biological organisms exhibit specified complexity, design theorists focus on identifiable systems (e.g., individual enzymes, metabolic pathways, and molecular machines). These systems are not only specified by their independent functional requirements but also exhibit a high degree of complexity.

In Darwin

[Abulafia]

Interesting thread, not something the UK is experiencing in the same way that the US is experiencing within school.

I teach science at a rudimentary level in school, and I teach RE at a rudimentary level in school. Yet we have this big debate here about the inter-connectedness of the subjects. Humans like to box. So we get history, literacy, numeracy, RE, Citizenship, geography and so on. 20 years ago, here in the UK we were away from subject based teaching and on to topic based teaching, where connections were found. So we would take a topic like ....hedgerows....and then brainstorm all the subjects that can come under that heading. It was actually a wonderful way to learn, except we couldn't always bring in the maths...without being a trifle superficial. (though I suppose it could fit with measurement and basic number operations and if you really used your imagination you could get some really good applied maths out of it) Ah well. Now we are back to subject based areas, but no....it's starting to swing back again...aaaargh....

Does a definition of science include only that which is observable and testable?

Does a definition of RE include only that which is based on faith and unknowable?

Or is there a cross-over there somewhere. I suspect there is...

Abulafia

[Smith]

but as anyone who has bothered to learn about HOW evolution works, it is natural selection that builds good design by rejecting most variants while including and accumulating those variants that improve adaptation

Please excuse my ingnorance but just how does evolution do this, and, has this been demonstrated or reproduced?

[Knight who says Ne]

You people are so funny. What did I say that no one gets. The same scientific evidences that support evolution, i.e. fossels records, spontaneous (of controled) genetic mutation, natural selection, etc, ALSO supports the theory of intelligent design. The difference - I repeat - is that one relies on chance only, meaning something that happens without outside influence or control does so by chance only. It is far more plausable to say we (the world) evolved from lessor life forms by design than by pure chance. That makes both (or neither) science.

My goodness, some reading is in order here, and not in the silly Scientific Creationist propaganda either

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the odds against of our complex earth evolving without outside influences is rather substantial. Evolutionist either ignore those odds or just say the odds were beaten. I don't have the read to think. Unlike idieologes from either camp, I get information from both sides and then form an opinion. Please refrain from insulting my intelligence that I only get my information only from "SILLY SCIENTIFIC CREATIONIST PROPAGANDA".

I'm not an atheist

I never said you were, however, you say you believe in God and that God controled the evolutionary process yet you don't want that taught in school. Why? Because you can't prove God by science? It may come as a shock but you can't prove evolution either since those processes have not been repeated in a lab without outside influences. And by removing possible variations of truths, theories, ideas, etc., and selecting only those that are politically correct, then schools become institutions of indoctrination rather than education.

[Smith]

Does a definition of science include only that which is observable and testable?

Does a definition of RE include only that which is based on faith and unknowable?

Or is there a cross-over there somewhere. I suspect there is...

I suspect you are right. I am reminded of something Nibley said (I cant remember where now) talking about the history of science with the ancient Greeks who decided that in their exploration of stuff, God was not something that could be measured and just saying something like "God made it so" does not satisfy the curiosity. And so God was removed from the equation. The problem as you so nicely demonstrated is that things are all related in one great big ecosystem so removing something from it does not work. Just like with people, I could see something a person does, jump to a conclusion, and find out later that my judgment was way out because of reasons X, Y and Z.

My 2c

[spinner]

This link provides no scientific evidence whatsoever.

Here's the scientific part, in case you missed it:

In determining whether biological organisms exhibit specified complexity, design theorists focus on identifiable systems (e.g., individual enzymes, metabolic pathways, and molecular machines). These systems are not only specified by their independent functional requirements but also exhibit a high degree of complexity.

In Darwin

[Makarios]

This not 'scientific evidence.' All this purported evidence does is try and cast doubt on evolution (rather poorly IMO) by presenting a quandary and then introducing the deus ex machina of intelligent design to purportedly resolve this puzzle. This is not the same thing as presenting scientific evidence.

Show me something in the fossil record or something observable in the natural world that evidences divine or supernatural power influencing the development of organic life and I'll accept it as scientific evidence. Simply saying, in effect, 'this is too complex to have been accomplished by natural selection, therefore god must have done it' is not science.

As I have already pointed out, several scientific fields use design criteria as part of their discipline (archeology, criminology, and SETI). Why should the study of human origens be any different?

Design is an established and legitimate field of scientific investigation, even if you don't like the conclusions.

[Knight who says Ne]

Show me something in the fossil record or something observable in the natural world that evidences divine or supernatural power influencing the development of organic life and I'll accept it as scientific evidence. Simply saying, in effect, 'this is too complex to have been accomplished by natural selection, therefore god must have done it' is not science.

Why? Because of your bias against anything that smells of faith? Show me something in the evolutionary processes that negate divine or supernatural power influencing such processes. Lack of adequate fossel records cast doubts on evolution as it is taught, therefore it may not be science either.

We can extend this arguement in all kinds of directions that will provide little results. We can say, we'll teach socialist economics and ignore Adam Smith economics, becauce we don't believe in Adam Smith's views as reliable. That would prove little in educating our youth in all possible truths.

[cdowis]

>Show me something in the fossil record or something observable in the natural world that evidences divine or supernatural power influencing the development of organic life and I'll accept it as scientific evidence. Simply saying, in effect, 'this is too complex to have been accomplished by natural selection, therefore god must have done it' is not science.

Then you would agree that scientists should stop trying to use evolution to explain the origin of man? There is no fossil, or any other scientific finding which "explains" the origin of man.

Therefore, you would agree that evolution as an explanation of man's origin is not science?

"Man evolved...." is not a scientific statement. It has not been proven by the fossil record, and, basically, is unprovable. Just like ID.

You can only observe and come to a conclusion -- "ID did this", or "evolution did this".

Or even, "ID using evolution did this."

[Dando]

There seems to be a lot of setting aside of Intelligent Design by just assuming that it is pushing the Genesis story or that it simply employs the "god in the gaps theory" in regards to evolutionary difficulties. These simply are not the case.

ID Theory is attempting to use scienitific evidence to find signs of intelligence in the natural world (scientificially classified "Information" being one of these signs). In it's most scientifically pure form it only wishes to distinquish what can be created by random occurence and what can only be created by intelligence. This is a process used everyday by forensic scientist and every night on the numerous CSI spinoffs.

Certainly there are implications to discovering intelligence. But saying that it's not scientific because of its' implications is just as silly as William Jennings Bryant in the Scopes Monkey trial saying that evolution was not scientific because of its' implications.

For scientific evidence supporting ID I recommend anything written by William Dembski and "The Privileged Planet" by Jay Richards and Guillermo Gonzalez. Or you can follow the advise of the Dover, PA school board and check out "Of Pandas and People" at your local library on your own time.

[asbestosman]

ID Theory is attempting to use scienitific evidence to find signs of intelligence in the natural world (scientificially classified "Information" being one of these signs).  In it's most scientifically pure form it only wishes to distinquish what can be created by random occurence and what can only be created by intelligence.  This is a process used everyday by forensic scientist and every night on the numerous CSI spinoffs.

Ah, and that's the problem isn't it? Random process can create anything that intelligence can create. The oncly difference is in how likely such a thing will occur. Call me an offender for a word, but I think at best what ID can do is say what is more likely (or reasonable), not which explanation is the only possibility.

If I flip a fair coin for an eternity, eventually I will get any finite sequence imaginable (including the binary representation of human DNA). What makes the universe interesting is that we seem to have only had a few billion years to get the right conditions for life (right physical constants) as well as life itself. Unless a scientist supposes that there are in infinite number of universes being "created" with random conditions, it is extremely unlikely that life would ever appear anywhere in the universe.