With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
--DI--
As I explained in my fourth opening statement, design can be inferred regardless of whether the designer is natural or supernatural.
---
That of course is incorrect and has been discussed many times now, although the ID proponents do not seem to have a response, which is fine.
It's the bait and switch between ordinary design for which we have some independent evidence, and rarefied design which lack such distinction which makes the latter one highly unreliable.
Ask yourself this simple question: How does ID explain the bacterial flagella?
It doesn't, it merely calls it 'designed' which is a placeholder for our ignorance as to how to explain the flagella.
But it gets worse, ID is doomed to sit back idling while science has continued to expand its knowledge of the flagella and likely evolutionary pathways. And while ID could not even compete with our ignorance, it now faces an even bigger challenge, namely a scientific hypothesis.
That my friends is why ID has to resort to equivocation on the terms natural and supernatural, to include 'intelligence' as a supernatural cause.
What a shame that good science is used to support such a vacuous notion
- PvM
September 12, 2008 1:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
PvM:
(1) "Ask yourself this simple question: How does ID explain the bacterial flagella?
(2) "It doesn't, it merely calls it 'designed' which is a placeholder for our ignorance as to how to explain the flagella."
(1) Answer: It's a machine with functional components. The design and construct process is largely unknown, but researchable.
(2) The 'designed' designation IS in fact a placeholder, but for further study. This brings up a common complaint that ID offers no testable hypotheses. I submit that a hypothesis comes first; the testing later. Since there's no funding, and there is stigma attached, there has been little confirming research done as yet. I predict that that will change with the new crop of scientists, a few of whom may see its relevance, and pursue it. A word to any out there who may fit that category. That word is 'Nobel.'
- Lee Bowman September 12, 2008 3:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
==I asked==
(1) "Ask yourself this simple question: How does ID explain the bacterial flagella?
(2) "It doesn't, it merely calls it 'designed' which is a placeholder for our ignorance as to how to explain the flagella."
===
Bowman responds
===
(1) Answer: It's a machine with functional components. The design and construct process is largely unknown, but researchable.
==
In other words, it does not explain but rather describes. And so while science has in fact researched the 'design' and construction process, ID has done exactly what to further its case?
==Bowman
(2) The 'designed' designation IS in fact a placeholder, but for further study. This brings up a common complaint that ID offers no testable hypotheses. I submit that a hypothesis comes first; the testing later. Since there's no funding, and there is stigma attached, there has been little confirming research done as yet. I predict that that will change with the new crop of scientists, a few of whom may see its relevance, and pursue it. A word to any out there who may fit that category. That word is 'Nobel.'
==
Why should we accept 'design' as a placeholder when 'we don't know' is a much better one.
I appreciate the wishful thinking and the ever prevalent promissory note. Yes, blame it on lack of funding and yet insist it is also taught in schools under the guise of 'teach the controversy' or 'academic freedom'
So what hypothesis does ID propose in a non ad hoc manner?
"we don't know so let's call it designed"
How does real science explain it?
"we don't know" let's develop new hypotheses before we jump to conclusion
Telling difference...
- PvM September 12, 2008 4:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
"An underlying assumption of ID is that intelligence is a property which we can generally understand through our observations of intelligent agents in the natural world."
Ok. And how many types of "intelligent agents" have you observed in this natural world? I can think of one obvious type - humans. Do you wish to specify other types of intelligent agents that you are observing? Ants? Chimpanzees? Computers? Hmm. It seems that you would mainly observe us humans.
So what makes you think that observing human intelligence means that "intelligence is a property which we can generally understand"? I think you are committing the fallacy of trying to appeal to "common sense" in a very inappropriate manner.
Humans are intelligent.
Humans design things.
Living entities appear designed.
Therefore there must be some natural or supernatural designer who designed those living things.
But, of course, this is a silly non sequitur.
"An underlying assumption of ID is that intelligence is a property which we can generally understand through our observations of intelligent agents in the natural world."
I think your assumption is false as a generalization. Perhaps we understand a lot of things about human intelligence. But generalizing to ANY intelligence is silly. I assume you don't have any good examples of alien intelligence. And you don't want to admit that your designing intelligence has to be a supernatural intelligence.
You want to have your cake and eat it too. For you, obviously life is intelligently designed, but you refuse to get serious about who, how, why or when this intelligent agent actually did something in this natural world.
Well, you can't have a "theory" of "intelligent design" without actually saying something about what actually happened so that your "theory" would actually mean something.
"allowing us to detect design in biology"
Nonsense.
"I explained that the refusal of ID proponents to use ID to draw scientific conclusions about the nature or identity of the designer is principled rather than merely rhetorical."
Riiight. And that's one very good reason why there is no such thing as a theory of intelligent design.
"Thus for the scientific theory of ID to try to identify the designer would be to inappropriately conflate science with religion."
And to fail to even think about the attributes required for the designer means that there is no such thing as the "theory of ID". You are making "observations" and jumping to your conclusion and there's nothing in between that would generate a "theory".
- onein6billion October 3, 2008 3:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
1) Without a scientific definition of "natural", scientists cannot distinguish between natural explanations and supernatural ones. Since they cannot make this distinction, they lack a scientifically-based justification for insisting that supernatural explanations be kept out of science.
2) When actually doing science, scientists do not care if their explanations are natural. Their only concern is if an explanation leads to predictions. The predictive power is all that matters in science. A supernatural explanation that leads to accurate predictions is better for science than a natural explanation that does not lead to accurate predictions. Conceptions of "natural" and "supernatural" are relevant only in philosophy.
3) "Everything that exists" is the only adequate definition of "natural" that I have been given by someone opposed to religion. If this is a proper definition, then God and/or the intelligent designer would be natural according to science. Therefore, anti-IDists' "It-Uses-The-Supernatural-To-Explain" argument would be moot.
- ufcarazy January 23, 2009 12:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
You're right, much if not all of the claims about "supernatural claims/premises of ID make it invalid" rest on some faulty views on what supernatural actually means.
My main criticism of anyone who tries to disqualify ID from science (because it has the implication that supernatural forces might exist) is that they usually fail to make the distinction between the IMPLICATIONS of a theory and the EVIDENCE for a theory.
It wouldn't matter if the force behind design is a supernatural entity because if we make those conclusions based on what we OBSERVE in physics or biological systems then we can safely say it's testable.
If we applied the same standard that critics of ID are applying to everything else in science, then we may as well conclude the big bang isn't science (since that has supernatural implications of a first cause).
- F2XL January 23, 2009 1:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Natural: pertaining to or part of the observable world. Something that behaves according to physical laws.
Supernatural: pertaining to something beyond the observable world. Something that does not behave according to physical laws.
- MrBook September 18, 2009 6:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I don't really believe in the supernatural unless you wanted to say that the first cause behind the big bang is beyond the observable world and therefor supernatural. Everything after the beginning is natural. What we think of as supernatural is just that which science hasn't figured out yet.
- mike1948 September 18, 2009 1:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
But where does that leave ID? Without a theory for the designer then that aspect remains unknown, and would thus be called supernatural.
- MrBook September 20, 2009 7:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
ID without a designer? The cause of the big bang is unknown. Does that make it supernatural?
- mike1948 September 20, 2009 11:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The cause of the big bang is currently unknown, but it is also undergoing investigation. Once a theory is found then where will that leave the supernatural? Where will it leave the designer?
- MrBook September 21, 2009 5:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
5
11
15
13
11
6
10
8
6
6
9
7
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Intelligent Design is a Quest for the Supernatural
- From Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
By Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights - Advancing Objectivism
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who designed the designer?
Debater Jay Richards answers this question quite clearly in a short video at: www.discovery.org/v/19 . The folks at ARI should watch and listen.
- Robert Crowther September 9, 2008 11:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Answers or attempts to answer
We may disagree as to the ability of ID proponents to explain the ultimate source of complexity. Since ID argues that complexity can only come from more complexity, the original source of the complexity found in our universe has to be caused by something even more complex, leading to the inevitable question of who designed this higher form of complexity.
Claiming that "it's turtles all the way down" and that the original source of complexity has always existed is not a scientific claim.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 11:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
Watched Jay Richards. Not impressed.
"Who designed the designer?" is a valid and important point, and IDs fatal flaw. Jay Richards argues that not knowing "Who designed the designer?" does not prove that there was no designer. Just as design can be inferred from Mount Rushmore (his example) without knowing anything about who designed it or where they came from in turn, so the complexity of life demonstrates design even though we know nothing of the designer except that he/she/they/it exists.
Fine. I agree that lack of knowledge concerning the designer does not prove he doesn't exist. I only argue that by IDs OWN ARGUMENT (that complexity requires intelligent design), the complex intelligent designer itself MUST ALSO HAVE BEEN designed, leading to a near-infinite regression that Richards himself acknowledges. Richards then argues that each person may have his own explanation concerning how the "First Designer", be it god, an advanced alien species, or matter itself (his example), came into existence.
But no matter how you explain the existence of a First Designer, the explanation must either hypothesize complex intelligence in the ABSENCE of a previous designer, or it must hypothesize a supernatural god that who doesn't have to obey ID's rules. Assuming that you IDers are not hypothesizing god (which would make this a theological debate, and make ID creationism-in-sheep's-clothing), you must then be suggesting that the First Designer would have been complex enough to design the next designer in the chain without being designed itself. Does your theory allow for the existence of a natural, but complex and intelligent being that was not itself designed? If not, then we have an infinite regression. If so, why not hypothesize that Man is that being, and that we just don't yet understand how its possible?
Sid
- SidAirfoil
September 18, 2008 10:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
Be careful about defining 'natural' ...
"By the very nature of its approach, "intelligent design" cannot be satisfied with a "designer" who is part of the natural world."
Define "natural world". Prior to 1950 there were only 97 known elements. Several decades earlier, photons were unknown, or at least 'unproven'. By the mid 1960's, physicists realized that their prior concept of matter being composed of the fundamental protons, neutrons, and electron, was insufficient to explain the myriad new particles being uncovered. Prior to evidences, it was met with skepticism, and some of them were referred to as quacks; and thus came 'quarks'.
ID addresses evidences for designed structures, mechanisms and synergistic systems in biology. Hypothesizing intervening agencies is more difficult, and irrelevant to the ID synthesis.
You at the institute state that the designer could not be natural. I disagree, since everything that interacts with known matter (in this case bioforms), would likely exist within the universe, to enable it to interact. It could well be external, if space is multidimensional, but it's not a requirement. The basis for you claim is a fall back on the religious point of view for the master designer, but has no scientific evidence or merit on its own. You conclusion, based on you meritless allegation of supernaturality or transcendency, is therefore pointless.
Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne did a piece for the Guardian in which one of them, probably Dawkins, stated, " ... any God capable of creating a bacterial flagellum (to say nothing of a universe) would have to be a far more complex, and therefore statistically improbable, entity than the bacterial flagellum (or universe) itself ... "
What kind of logic is that? Is it improbable to be more complex than 45 proteins in one package? Or even worse, to be more complex than the universe to create it? What is the evidence for those assertions?
Since an ant is more complex than a flagellum, I assume that one could put together a flagellum, even if God couldn't.
"Its advertising to the contrary notwithstanding, "intelligent design" is inherently a quest for the supernatural."
No, it's to define, and detect (or falsify) design in biosystems, and in so doing, possibly modify evolutionary theory. While it's true that some advocate, and seek to validate, a young earth hypothesis, that is far from what ID hypothesizes.
Ayn Rand rejected religion, and by extension theism, more for political reasons than logical inferences. She believed in objectivism and rational thought. So do I, but I also see the evidence of, and the logic for design.
So who designed the designers? I dunno, how do you assemble spirit energy?
- Lee Bowman
September 11, 2008 8:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Defining design again
==Bowman
ID addresses evidences for designed structures, mechanisms and synergistic systems in biology.
==
Where design basically means that science has yet to explain these exciting new observations. However, note that ID is by definition ill equipped to provide any explanation beyond 'poof'. Such is the fate of appealing to the supernatural which explains anything and thus really nothing.
- PvM
September 11, 2008 9:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Nature's origins require something beyond nature
Even the anti-IDists require something beyond nature to explain the origin of nature. Natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origins.
ID is NOT an argument about complexity and it certainly does NOT state that complexity can only arise from complexity.
ID is about FUNCTIONAL complexity.
The bottom line is we do exist and there is only ONE reality behind our existence. If you listen to the anti-ID side our existence is due to many accidents- first cosmic and then genetic.
Is that scientific? How can we test that premise? What predictions does it make?
IOW it is very funny what PvM offers up as science and out of the other side of his mouth rejects ID without consideration.
- Joe G
September 15, 2008 9:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Functional complexity
So ID is about complexity and function but that merely describes what I outlined already. Something has function and science does not understand how said function arose so we call it 'design'. Still an argument that adds nothing to 'we don't know' and in fact, as formulated is inherently unreliable.
--Joe
OW it is very funny what PvM offers up as science and out of the other side of his mouth rejects ID without consideration.
--
It's not only funny but contradicted by what I have said on this forum. And note that I am not addressing the claim of it being science, after all that would allow the ID proponent to sidetrack the discussion by pointing out the 'demarcation problem'. What I am arguing is far harder for ID to respond to namely the fact that it is scientifically speaking without content.
What to see an example? How does ID explain the bacterial flagella? How does it compare to scientific hypotheses?
Good luck
- PvM
September 15, 2008 5:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Is PvM being obtuse?
How does the anti-ID position explain the bacterial flagellum? "It just evolved". If you think there is a different explanation then please post it.
BTW ID explains the BF the same way an archaeologist would set out to explain any artifact. However by your "logic" archaeology is a useless endeavor akin to giving up. Why couldn't nature, operating freely build Stonehenge?
PvM:
So ID is about complexity and function but that merely describes what I outlined already. Something has function and science does not understand how said function arose so we call it 'design'. Still an argument that adds nothing to 'we don't know' and in fact, as formulated is inherently unreliable.
----
However you don't say we don't know. You say we don't know but a designer wasn't required.
And again the design inference relies on observations, data, and experience. And as with all scientific inferences future research can either confirm or refute that inference.
That is how science operates.
- Joe G
September 17, 2008 5:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Let's explore
I understand the ad hominem approach chosen by Joe, after all, what is the alternative? Showing that ID really lives up to what Joe claims it is?
--Joe G
And again the design inference relies on observations, data, and experience. And as with all scientific inferences future research can either confirm or refute that inference.
That is how science operates.
---
Actually the design inference relies on the absence of these to infer something they call 'design' based not upon a positive hypothesis, but rather based on an eliminative approach called the 'explanatory filter' which concludes that lacking a scientific explanation we should infer 'design' even though design cannot compete with our ignorance, and even though design still may include a natural designer such as variation and selection. In other words, ID is a placeholder where, lacking sufficient explanations, it argues, nay insists that we call it 'design' just because it looks designed. The overlap with Paley should be self evident but things get worse when ID proponents attempt to validate the approach by claiming that this is how science works.
In fact, this is NOT how science works, as can be trivially shown by noticing that ID refuses to constrain its designer by such scientific approaches as used in criminology which include means, motives, opportunity, as well as eye witnesses, physical evidence and circumstantial evidences. No, ID cannot rely on such because, by relying on what science has come to identify as 'rarefied' design, it has effectively chosen an approach which cannot even compete with 'we don't know' as it provides no positive hypotheses.
So let's expose the scientific vacuity of ID once again:
How does ID explain the genetic code/bacterial flagella and how does its 'explanation' compares to how science explains these?
The lack of explanations from ID, combined with its silly name calling, should be sufficient evidence of its scientific vacuity.
- PvM
September 17, 2008 10:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.