Experts and users discuss intelligent design, evolution, religion in society, religion and science: ID Does Not Address Religious Claims About the Supernatural
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
ID Does Not Address Religious Claims About the Supernatural
- From Discovery Institute
By Discovery Institute - A Positive Vision of the Future
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But if ID tells us real things about the real world, should it not?
I don't agree with the very first statement that "ID limits its claims to what can be scientifically inferred from the empirical domain." A force unaffected by time and physics that cannot be detected or measured and does not reliably or predictably act cannot be scientifically inferred.
But, since ID supposes a supernatural source, isn't it obligated to investigate the supernatural and find said source? ID works from the presupposition that there is an intelligence out there that created our world and situation. So one would think it makes a big difference to humanity if Earth was formed from a goddess ripped apart by a pair of Aztec gods, or if we all happen to be living in the Dreamtime.
- sharky
September 24, 2008 7:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ordinary and rarefied design
Sharky has pointed out the problem with ID, namely the flawed concept that ordinary and rarefied design can be detected reliably based on the same approach. In fact, we know that in case of ordinary design, science relies on positive hypotheses based on means, motives, opportunities, physical and circumstantial evidence, eye witnesses and more. Rarefied design, by its nature, cannot be constrained and thus science lacks methodology to reliably detect it using the 'design inference' method proposed by ID.
Simple really, if the design inference would lead to false positives (inferring design where there wasn't) it is useless per Dembski's own statements. Since we know of quite a few examples where design inferences led to false positives, the conclusion seems self evident.
When will ID admit to this?
- PvM
September 24, 2008 9:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not natural and it's not supernatural!
"A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies natural objects to determine if they bear the tell-tale signs that they were designed by an intelligent cause."
And that study has completely failed to convince real scientists that there really are any biological entities that bear such supposedly tell-tale signs. So intelligent design fails in its anti-evolution purpose.
"B. Intelligent design does not attempt to address religious questions about the identity or metaphysical nature of the designer."
Wise choice. But what about non-religious questions like how, what, and when? Oops. Intelligent design does not try to address those questions either.
"C. Intelligent design’s non-identification of the designer stems from an intent to respect for limits of scientific inquiry and not make claims that go beyond what can be learned using scientific methods."
Hilarious. You aren't actually using the scientific method and you are not making any claims that make any sense, so talking about a supposed designer doesn't make any sense anyway.
"Explanations that call on intelligent causes require no miracles but cannot be reduced to materialistic explanations."
Riiight. So it's not natural, but it's also not supernatural. Silly me, I thought those two categories were rather all-encompassing.
"What has kept design outside the scientific mainstream these last 130 years is the absence of precise methods for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones."
Seems reasonable to me. And since that is still true today, ...
"Intelligent causes can be inferred through confirmable data."
So you say. How come those silly scientists don't believe you? Do they just look at your "confirmable data" and say "nonsense"? No intelligent cause required? Isn't it just "obvious"? What kind of proof are they demanding? Oh, that's right, you refuse to speculate about the nature of this "intelligent cause". So why don't they simply think your explanation is a miracle? What's the difference between an unexplainable "intelligent cause" and a "miracle"?
- onein6billion
October 3, 2008 3:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why "intelligent design" is forever outside of science
The DI agrees that “Methodological naturalism simply requires that, in trying to explain any particular observation or experimental result, an investigator may not resort to miracles. (14)" Note the word "requires". This is the fundamental definition of science.
The DI claims:
"ID is not an appeal to a supernatural cause"
but that is not the right question. The right question is - does ID ALLOW a supernatural cause? If it does, then it can never be science.
"Critics will immediately reply that while ID may not specifically invoke supernatural causation, it leaves open the possibility there was a supernatural creator. For this reason, they will argue that by permitting supernatural causation, ID may be subject to the “whim of a deity” and loses the predictability and reliability required by methodological naturalism."
Of course. And that means it can never be science. So in the next sentence, the DI waves its hands and asserts that:
"This argument is logically flawed."
Hilarious. Why are they allowed to claim this argument is logically flawed? The supernatural can never be part of science and ID admits that their "intelligent cause" could be supernatural. Therefore it follows that ID can never be part of science. If their "intelligent designer" swoops into this natural world on a "whim" and does something, science could never understand or explain it. Science would always say "I don't know why this happened." If ID admits that searching for a natural cause to explain some natural effect could be fruitless, then ID should give up that search and remain outside of science. If ID thinks that there really could be a natural cause that explains their supposed design effect, they should tell their religious supporters and stop taking money from them.
So in the next paragraph, let's change the subject:
"While it is true that ID permits supernatural causation, the same is true of neo-Darwinism."
Again hilarious. Fundamentally, science assumes that there will never be a supernatural cause that produces a natural effect. If this happened, science would be "baffled". Science would say "I don't know yet." Science would continue to look for a natural cause forever. Science never gives up. Maybe that Nobel Prize for a new natural law discovery will be found next year.
The DI has spent millions of dollars on their campaign of propaganda. They may claim that they are spending dollars on "research". But is it research to find a natural cause for their supposed natural "design effect"? Of course not. They are forever in a state of "I don't know" so that really means "Let's don't go there." So they can never do real scientific research into the question of WHY and HOW this cause produces this effect. They can never come up with a scientific explanation. (And that would assume that there is something which actually needs explaining.)
And their propaganda continues:
"More importantly, the design can be strongly inferred regardless of whether the designer is natural or supernatural."
Baloney. No evolutionary scientist agrees with that assertion.
And then their final statement:
"The theory of ID 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)"
A "theory" must do more than "detect". A theory must EXPLAIN WHY. So it is very clear from this admission that there can never be a "theory of ID". A supernatural cause is outside of science and can never be used to explain why something happens in the natural world.
So, does "intelligent design" have scientific merit? Of course not.
- onein6billion
October 4, 2008 3:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What's this definition of science?
When I grew up, science was a useful tool for discovering things about the world around us. What is this revised definition? If science excludes possibilities before considering them, it has ceased to be a useful tool for learning about reality.
The problem is that the origin of life is not science; it was an historical event. Both evolutionary scientists and IDers make a major mistake by sometimes claiming to address a historical topic (the origin of life) while ignoring historical evidence. No human observed the origin of life. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, who did observe life's origin (as He created it). To make up excuses to refuse to consider this possibility is shows a glaring lack of critical thinking.
So while ID is useful in understanding reality because it is willing to consider the possibility of a designer, it still avoids considering important historical evidence recorded in the Bible.
- seektruth
January 13, 2009 3:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I disagree
And this site says it better than I could. I love this site. I often go to read its comments and periodicals and newsletters. Here is an article on ID that does discuss the supernatural and I felt it did so very well.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html
There are other nice articles too and I like the resources he uses and states at end of articles.
- Hope7
July 11, 2009 7:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.