Does Design Theory Contradict Lds Theology?

[zerinus]

Isn't Intelligent Design simply saying there was an intelligence that was the catalyst for putting the elements necessary for creation in motion. I've never understood ID to be contrary to LDS beliefs.

I think you are right. Sometime ago the Church put out a video called Finding Happiness which suggests LDS support for ID:

[zerinus]

I really don't understand why you say this is off-topic, Log. That God the Father has a body is quite mainstream. That he has a Father is also quite mainstream. That no one designed the human form and, therefore, (the body) doesn't qualify as being "intelligently designed" by anyone does follow. If a body then also the conditions that must be there to support that body. Then, neither this body we have nor its laws are intelligently designed by anyone, they have always been there. God has been doing what other gods have been doing before him forever.

This isn't just another "certain version" of LDS theology... this is what follows from mainstream Mormon teachings about the nature of God's plan and God's attributes.

Intelligent Design stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from creation by chance. If you can prove that LDS theology teaches that the human body (or God's body, or whatever,) came by chance, then it would be incompatible with Intelligent Design; but I am not aware that anybody has done that.

[zerinus]

Lots depends on which version of creationism is subscribed to. By far the largest group within the creationism movement is the creation ex nihilo bunch. Which IS against LDS Theology.

I don't see that it does. Intelligent Design stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from creation by chance. If it was not by chance then it was by design. Whether that design started from something or from nothing is relevant to that proposition.

[Log]

I don't see that it does. Intelligent Design stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from creation by chance. If it was not by chance then it was by design. Whether that design started from something or from nothing is not relevant to that proposition.

Fixed!

Edited July 5, 2011 by Log

[elguanteloko]

Both the Bible and modern revelation confirm that God created the human body.

Scripture teaches that God gave the laws that govern the universe (D&C 88:13).

Creation is not design. There's no intelligent designer in Mormonism with respect to the things I talked about. God's father has a body, too. Did our father create his father's body, too?

You have already been asked to take this to another thread so I will have to remove you from this one.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Minos

[Log]

Creation is not design. There's no intelligent designer in Mormonism with respect to the things I talked about. God's father has a body, too. Did our father create his father's body, too?

I have asked you multiple times, directly, to take your issues to another thread. Where are the mods?

Edited July 5, 2011 by Log

[zerinus]

Creation is not design. There's no intelligent designer in Mormonism with respect to the things I talked about. God's father has a body, too. Did our father create his father's body, too?

I refer you to what I said in post #29:

I don't see that it does. Intelligent Design stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from creation by chance. If it was not by chance then it was by design. Whether that design started from something or from nothing is relevant to that proposition.

That is your answer.

[BCSpace]

I really don't understand why you say this is off-topic, Log. That God the Father has a body is quite mainstream. That he has a Father is also quite mainstream. That no one designed the human form and, therefore, (the body) doesn't qualify as being "intelligently designed" by anyone does follow. If a body then also the conditions that must be there to support that body. Then, neither this body we have nor its laws are intelligently designed by anyone, they have always been there. God has been doing what other gods have been doing before him forever.

This isn't just another "certain version" of LDS theology... this is what follows from mainstream Mormon teachings about the nature of God's plan and God's attributes.

I have to strongly agree with elguanteloko here about the topical nature of the response. The OP states in part:

Please show how anything in The Design Inference, by William A. Dembski, which is the standard reference on design theory, or, if you prefer, Intelligent Design Theory, contradicts any aspect of LDS theology (whatever that is).

So if that were alone, then perhaps one can argue that all responses must address Dembski's work. However, the OP is much broader than that:

If you cannot demonstrate that design theory contradicts LDS theology (whatever that is), then I expect you to retract your claim and refrain from repeating it.

So what the OP is asking us to do is compare ID with LDS theology AND to define LDS theology as well. elguanteloko did exactly what the OP asked him to do.

I am very disappointed that Log will not acknowledge his own OP and cut it down to size if it's too broad. And I'm very disappointed that our new moderator is unable to see the topical nature of the responses vis a vis the OP.

There is no intellectual honesty in CARM-like censorship of ideas and direct answers to OP questions. Someone with intellectual honesty and integrity should start a new thread on the topic so we can actually discuss the issue without someone calling a mod whenever there is legitimate disagreement or a contradictory point.

[Log]

You're off-topic as well, BCSpace. EGL's post does NOT address Dembski's work, and it does not, in fact, define LDS theology (whatever that is). What EGL is saying is that a certain variant of LDS belief - the beginningless chain of Gods, each having a father etc. - is self-contradictory. That is off-topic.

Take it to a new thread. Bye.

Again, this thread is for Cdowis to finally answer the CFR posed in the OP. He's declined, because, no doubt, he cannot answer it, because he's wrong.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Log

[Ariarates]

It is relevant if design theory is false; therefore, if you want to say that design theory has been falsified because an event of known provenance displays small probability on all relevant chance hypotheses and it conforms to a pattern of high compressability, and it is known that no intelligent agent influenced the event, then you'll have to demonstrate this claim with references wherein the calculations showing the probabilites have been done.

So let me get this straight (don't wanna go off-topic): you present some theory (or whatever it is) and lay the burden of falsifying it on others?

Edited July 5, 2011 by Ariarates

[Log]

So let me get this straight (don't wanna go off-topic): you present some theory (or whatever it is) and lay the burden of falsifying it on others?

You are off-topic.

Someone makes a specific claim: "All whales are mammals; here are references substantiating this claim (citations follow)." He further says "If you wish to disprove this claim, you must cite at least one instance of a whale which was non-mammalian, with specific reference to the publication wherein this was demonstrated."

Someone pipes up, "You're presenting some theory about whales and lay the burden of falsifying it on others?"

What should be said of the second person?

[TAO]

Log, the intelligent design cdowis is referring to likely has nothing to do with Dembski's book. Intelligent Design is a broader category than Design Theory.

Thus, I would like to point out that your thread here may not address what cdowis was talking about, and it would be good for you to follow up with him to determine what he meant.

In any case, I would like to point out that mathematically, Dembski's premises are incorrect. Because we cannot determine the 'intelligent' factor, it cannot be determined whether it's likeliness is greater than the likeliness of natural occurrence that is already less than 1/2.

In other words, if natural occurrence leaves a 2% chance of an event happening, it doesn't mean that 98% of the time the event happens, intelligence is involved. It's more complex than that. It is comparing 2% to an unknown percentage.

I don't think God works solely by percentage, but works by his own digression, thus I would think that it is not wise to forumlate an unexpected percentage boost as intelligent, when it simply could be a missing variable that is somewhat obscure that is effecting it.

God works how he does, and I think pointing out things that he could have possibly done are a bit iffy, we should wait for the revelation from him instead.

So sorry, I must disagree here =P.

Best Wishes,

TAO =)

Edited July 5, 2011 by TAO

[zerinus]

You're off-topic as well, BCSpace. EGL's post does NOT address Dembski's work, and it does not, in fact, define LDS theology (whatever that is). What EGL is saying is that a certain variant of LDS belief - the beginningless chain of Gods, each having a father etc. - is self-contradictory. That is off-topic.

I am not aware that that is what he said. He said that this particular teaching of Mormonism, by his reasoning, is incompatible with Intelligent Design, which is not the same thing as what you are saying he said. As it happens I disagree with his reasoning; but I don't agree that his post was off-topic.

[Log]

I am not aware that that is what he said. He said that this particular teaching of Mormonism, by his reasoning, is incompatible with Intelligent Design, which is not the same thing as what you are saying he said. As it happens I disagree with his reasoning; but I don't agree that his post was off-topic.

You don't have to agree. Mormonism, as such, does not teach the beginningless chain of Gods. The fact that the human body was designed does disprove that particular belief. Since the validity of that belief is unrelated to the topic of the thread - it is not necessarily part of LDS theology (whatever that is), nor does it address Dembski's work in relation to LDS theology (whatever that is), it is by definition off-topic.

Frankly, I am more than a little stunned that someone genuinely believes, in their heart of hearts, that something like this inference is true:

If we can scientifically detect the effects of intelligent action, then Mormonism is false.

It must be just me, but that position seems profoundly perverse, and serves only the adversary.

[Log]

Log, the intelligent design cdowis is referring to likely has nothing to do with Dembski's book. Intelligent Design is a broader category than Design Theory.

Thus, I would like to point out that your thread here may not address what cdowis was talking about, and it would be good for you to follow up with him to determine what he meant.

That would be the point of this thread. Do you see him contributing? Me neither.

In any case, I would like to point out that mathematically, Dembski's premises are incorrect. Because we cannot determine the 'intelligent' factor, it cannot be determined whether it's likeliness is greater than the likeliness of natural occurrence that is already less than 1/2.

Show me you understand Dembski's premises. You've mentioned condition 1. Please show how condition 1 AND condition 2 together don't imply intelligent action.

I agree that an egg alone doesn't make an egg sandwich. However, when combined in the proper way with 2 slices of bread and some Grey Poupon mustard, the result IS an egg sandwich.

[TAO]

That would be the point of this thread. Do you see him contributing? Me neither.

You should probably PM him about it then. I don't know if he has noticed this thread or not, and it would be in the best interest of all to assume he just missed it.

Show me you understand Dembski's premises. You've mentioned condition 1. Please show how condition 1 AND condition 2 together don't imply intelligent action.

I mentioned both conditions. I said A) the event being highly improbable doesn't prevent it from happening repetitively and B) we are not able to accurately assume the probability of all objects. To give you an example, the Math.random() method of some programming languages is based off of time and/or CPU usage. However, looking at a computer, you would not normally be able to guess that these were connected. Thus, Math.random() is actually not random, though it acts that way. It is just based off of a very obscure variable.

I agree that an egg alone doesn't make an egg sandwich. However, when combined in the proper way with 2 slices of bread and some Grey Poupon mustard, the result IS an egg sandwich.

However, let us say that the slices of bread are displayed by a very realistic looking hologram. Is it still an egg sandwhich? No, though it looks like one. The point is that his assumption that "for probability less than 1/2 that there is a greater likeliness of intelligent design" is incorrect. Now, I would agree that 'probability increasing increases the likeliness of intelligent design', but I wouldn't base it off of that number, simply because we do not have a starting percentage for intelligent design to base it off of. In other words, we have no information from God about the likeliness to start off, so to say 'less than 1/2' is kind of an assumption.

Similarly, if you roll a dice three times, there is still a chance all three will be sixes. No matter how unlikely, there is still that chance. And there is a more or less equal chance for all other possibilities. And when tossing three dice, a decision is forced to be made. One of those very unlikely possibilities WILL be chosen, regardless of how unlikely it is. Similarly, you might say that the world is lucky that it exists how it is, but the fact is, there are other slightly different possbilitites that are equally as unlikely, which could have been chosen had one tiny little small atom made a different 'decision'.

That doesn't mean I don't think that God designed the universe, of course - in fact, I know he did =D. I just think that the premise of this is a bit incorrect, if you know what I mean, no offense, and there are better ways to justify him then through intelligent design =).

Best Wishes,

TAO

[zerinus]

You don't have to agree. Mormonism, as such, does not teach the beginningless chain of Gods.

Some people think that it does; therefore that assumption (right or wrong) can be a legitimate part of the discussion.

The fact that the human body was designed does disprove that particular belief.

His contention was that it wasn't designed; hence his conclusions, right or wrong, can be a valid part of the discussion.

Since the validity of that belief is unrelated to the topic of the thread

The validity of what belief?—that the human body was designed, or that it was not designed? In either case, it can have a bearing on the discussion.

- it is not necessarily part of LDS theology (whatever that is),

If some people think that it is, then from their point of view it has a bearing on the current discussion, unless you can convince them otherwise, which cannot be done if the opinion is barred from the discussion.

nor does it address Dembski's work in relation to LDS theology (whatever that is), it is by definition off-topic.

I am not familiar with his work either; but it doesn't prevent me from intelligently conversing about Intelligent Design.

Frankly, I am more than a little stunned that someone genuinely believes, in their heart of hearts, that something like this inference is true:

I thought a purpose of such a discussion is to exchange such divergent views, so that their merits and demerits can be assessed. If we disallow insertion of opinions which we disagree with, then the purpose of the discussion has failed.

If we can scientifically detect the effects of intelligent action, then Mormonism is false.

It must be just me, but that position seems profoundly perverse, and serves only the adversary.

If it is, then you are not defeating that position by barring it from discussion. You are defeating the purpose of the discussion.

[Log]

You should probably PM him about it then. I don't know if he has noticed this thread or not, and it would be in the best interest of all to assume he just missed it.

I have irrefutable proof he noticed it (see post #3, I think, or was it #4?), and I need assume nothing except he is purposefully avoiding the CFR, because he cannot answer it, because he is wrong.

I mentioned both conditions. I said A) the event being highly improbable doesn't prevent it from happening repetitively and B) we are not able to accurately assume the probability of all objects. To give you an example, the Math.random() method of some programming languages is based off of time and/or CPU usage. However, looking at a computer, you would not normally be able to guess that these were connected. Thus, Math.random() is actually not random, though it acts that way. It is just based off of a very obscure variable.

I'm sorry, I do not see that you have accurately summarized condition #2, nor that your example is relevant. It is true that intelligences can mimic chance - but that ability to mimic chance ends when the algorithm behind the action becomes known. Suppose, for the sake of argument, I tell you that I genuinely flipped a fair coin 100 times and got 100 heads. You would, and should, instantly disbelieve me, because all possible outcomes from this easy to describe pattern are highly improbable; easily described (algorithmic), highly improbable events don't happen by chance. Suppose I told you I flipped the following sequence (0 represents tails, 1 represents heads): 0100011011000001010011100101110111000000010010001101000101011001111000100110101011110011011110111100. You would have no reason to disbelieve me, until you figure what the pattern is behind the numbers, and then you would disbelieve me again.

And so, forgive me, I request that you actually READ THE BOOK AND PAPER LINKED TO IN THE OP so that you may address the actual argument Dembski makes, rather than my admitted oversimplification of it. Here's a link to the paper. http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf

I fail to understand why you (plural) have adopted a methodology when treating design theory that you (plural) condemn when applied to Mormonism.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Log

[Log]

Some people think that it does; therefore that assumption (right or wrong) can be a legitimate part of the discussion.

The thread OP (me) said, and gave reasons why, it is off-topic. This post of yours is also off-topic. Please drop it.

[zerinus]

The thread OP (me) said, and gave reasons why, it is off-topic. This post of yours is also off-topic. Please drop it.

What elguanteloko was saying was that since LDS theology teaches an infinite regression of God, therefore the human body (or any other body for that matter) in essence was not "designed," but extended infinitely into the past, therefore it was incompatible with Intelligent Design. I went back and reread your OP, and I didn't find anything in it that would bar the insertion of that concept into the discussion, as a possible argument against the compatibility of LDS theology with ID. Can you show me what was said in you OP that you think should exclude the insertion of that argument into the discussion?

[TAO]

I have irrefutable proof he noticed it (see post #3, I think, or was it #4?), and I need assume nothing except he is purposefully avoiding the CFR, because he cannot answer it, because he is wrong.

He gave the correct answer though in that post - that was - he cited Elguanteloko's post. Elguanteloko was head-on-right. Although in my opinion, the process (if it is the process that actually exists) would be a style of intelligent design - just not the intelligent design recognized by others as intelligent design.

In other words, your design theory is in actually not true intelligent design. It is a semologous combination of intelligent design for what we would call 'fantastic events', and 'regularity' for the rest.

Intelligent Design, as it is used by the other posters, means God designed every little thing to happen - which in a sense he did - except we don't know if he created himself. We tend to think of him as part of a family, just as we are... and there is something appealing about him doing this for us just like parents do for children =).

I'm sorry, I do not see that you have accurately summarized condition #2, nor that your example is relevant. It is true that intelligences can mimic chance - but that ability to mimic chance ends when the algorithm behind the action becomes known.

The problem is that the algorithm behind the action is invisible. To give you an example, quantum entanglement. We know how it works but we don't know why it works. But it is very reliable, and the chances of it happening are close to 0. And yet, it is scientifically provable and to an extent, even usable. It's a similar case with quantum teleportation, I believe, although they may have worked out that one by now.

An example of something that would never be visible, for example, has to do with quantum encryption and keys. Quantum Encryption, if used properly, can make it impossible to read a message if you enter the wrong 'key'. Furthermore, if you enter the wrong key, it is nearly guaranteed that the receiving end will know that you gave the wrong key. Now, it is possible to enter the wrong key, and get an entirely readable message - but it says something that isn't what the message was. The situation is duplicatable, the process obvious, but they key itself is completely invisible except to the transmitting and receiving ends. Thus, it is my point that the algorithm is not always visible, especially with situations like this, and thus, it is impossible to make the assumption Mr. Dembski makes.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, I tell you that I genuinely flipped a fair coin 100 times and got 100 heads. You would, and should, instantly disbelieve me, because all possible outcomes from this easy to describe pattern are highly improbable;

And yet, it is possible. Which is why you shouldn't assume intelligent design, even if you do that same thing 100 times in a row. The chances are extremely little, but it doesn't mean it won't happen.

easily described (algorithmic), highly improbable events don't happen by chance. Suppose I told you I flipped the following sequence (0 represents tails, 1 represents heads): 0100011011000001010011100101110111000000010010001101000101011001111000100110101011110011011110111100. You would have no reason to disbelieve me, until you figure what the pattern is behind the numbers, and then you would disbelieve me again.

Alas, I do not base my belief or disbelief off of how likely something is. I realize something unlikely is possible. So you would not be correct in this instance.

And so, forgive me, I request that you actually READ THE BOOK AND PAPER LINKED TO IN THE OP so that you may address the actual argument Dembski makes, rather than my admitted oversimplification of it. Here's a link to the paper. http://www.designinf...ecification.pdf

I am sorry, I do not have time to read it. Alas, I believe you may believe things unlikely are nigh impossible, but I realize that what we call 'obscure variables' effect the equation. For example, a wind current across the world 2 hours ago probably had an effect on the coin you tossed. It effected something else, which effected something else, etc. And I bet that that same wind would also effect you if you tossed it right now. Indirectly and minutely, but still an effect. Everything is interlinked, to a degree, however small. This is why I say that any 'formulas' you create are oversimplifications of real life. In real life, you have to have all variables in existence (which could be infinite) in order to actually reliably write an equation. Or at least, all the equations within what we call effect distance... which would be the highest possible distance something could effect something else based on speed.

I fail to understand why you (plural) have adopted a methodology when treating design theory that you (plural) condemn when applied to Mormonism.

My friend, as said, since the equation is unknowable, knowing whether it is based on an additional variable or not is impossible. You would be dead before you would be able to do it at all. There is too many equations to check. You can make it very reliable and accurate, but never perfect. This is why I disagree with Dembski's premise.

Sorry for the confusion,

Best Wishes,

TAO

Edited July 5, 2011 by TAO

[Log]

What elguanteloko was saying was that since LDS theology teaches an infinite regression of God, therefore the human body (or any other body for that matter) in essence was not "designed," but extended infinitely into the past, therefore it was incompatible with Intelligent Design. I went back and reread your OP, and I didn't find anything in it that would bar the insertion of that concept into the discussion, as a possible argument against the compatibility of LDS theology with ID. Can you show me what was said in you OP that you think should exclude the insertion of that argument into the discussion?

Mormon theology (whatever that is) does not necessarily teach an infinite regression of Gods. That is one possible belief, and the Book of Mormon teaches of a Most High God, which contradicts an infinite regression of Gods. Hence, EGL was critiquing one possible notion that some Mormons hold, and not at all showing how Dembski's work contradicts Mormon theology (whatever that is).

It is also unclear how the rational ability to distinguish the effects of intelligent intervention from those of pure chance, described by Dembski, has any bearing on whether there is an infinite regression of Gods.

I freely grant that design theory, in rationally detecting that the human body was designed, does disprove the notion that the human body was not designed, but that's got nothing to do with anything any but a distinct minority of Mormons might believe. Hence, if it really interests you that much, go to BCSpace's thread about it. That's not LDS theology (whatever that is), and this isn't the place for it.

[Log]

I am sorry, I do not have time to read it. TAO

Then please depart forthwith, as you have nothing of substance to contribute. I have already outlined why.

Thanks.

[TAO]

the Book of Mormon teaches of a Most High God, which contradicts an infinite regression of Gods

I must CFR this. I am putting it in another thread though, hope you don't mind =).

Edited July 5, 2011 by TAO

[TAO]

Then please depart forthwith, as you have nothing of substance to contribute. I have already outlined why.

Thanks.

*Shrugs* your choice. My response is to your text, not to Dembski's. Responding to Dembski's would be kinda boring for me because he's not here to actually discuss it, if you know what i mean =P.

Edited July 5, 2011 by TAO