Intelligent Design is in Fact Religiously Based
Their viewpoint is not religiously based, they insist, because it does not require that the "intelligent designer" be God. "Design," writes another leading proponent, William Dembski, "requires neither magic nor miracles nor a creator." Indeed, "design" apparently requires surprisingly little of the "designer's" identity: "Inferences to design," contends Behe, "do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer." According to its advocates, the "designer" responsible for "intelligent design" in biology could be any sort of "creative intelligence" capable of engineering the basic elements of life. Some have even seriously nominated advanced space aliens for the role. Their premise seems to be that as long as they don't explicitly name the "designer"--as long as they allow that the "designer" could be a naturally existing being, a being accessible to scientific study--that this somehow saves their viewpoint from the charge of being inherently religious in character.
Imagine we discovered an alien on Mars with a penchant for bio-engineering. Could such a natural being fulfill the requirements of an "intelligent designer"?
It could not. Such a being would not actually account for the complexity that "design" proponents seek to explain. Any natural being capable of "designing" the complex features of earthly life would, on their premises, require its own "designer." If "design" can be inferred merely from observed complexity, then our purported Martian "designer" would be just another complex being in nature that supposedly cannot be explained without positing another "designer." One does not explain complexity by dreaming up a new complexity as its cause.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Could it be that you are biased against religion ? Because, I hate to break it to you but Christians believe that the world is round, so does that mean you disagree? Your foundation should be on whether or not your point of view is provable and truthful. I think intelligent design has merit on the same level as any other possible theories such as creationism and when we are closed minded to options thats when the evolution theory starts to break down and its probability is no more likely than any other theory, a hypothesis at best.
"Because, I hate to break it to you but Christians believe that the world is round, so does that mean you disagree?"
But is a round earth inherently a Christian position?
Also, Pagans believe that the earth is round as well... do you disagree with that position because you disagree with other beliefs of Pagans.
I recommend this book:God in the Foxhole by Charles Sasser, not that youll read it but hey its worth a try.
From the battlefields of the American Civil War through World Wars I and II, from Korea and Vietnam to the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers of all faiths have struggled for understanding and called on a higher power when faced with the realities of combat. God in the Foxhole is a stunning collection of true personal accounts from generations of American soldiers whose faith, in the words of author Charles W. Sasser, "has been born, reborn, tested, sustained, verified, or transformed under fire."
A renowned master of combat journalism and a former Green Beret, Sasser has gathered an immensely moving collection of war stories like no other -- stories of spirituality, conversion, and miracles from the battlefield. Be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist, churched since childhood or touched by the divine for the first time, here are the riveting experiences of army privates, bomber pilots, navy lieutenants, marines, prisoners of war, medics, nurses, chaplains, and others who, under desperate circumstances and with every reason to fear for their lives, found unknown strength, courage, and heroism through their remarkable faith.
end quote.
In case you didnt see it their was an atheist or two in those foxholes, but not for very long! Hahaha
"In case you didnt see it their was an atheist or two in those foxholes, but not for very long! Hahaha"
Sounds like a collection of anecdotal stories made by a biased source...
The 'no atheists in foxholes' is an aphorism and not a valid argument, as the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers will attest. In 2005 the MAAF held a march in Washington DC... in which one atheist from WWII was quoted as saying ‘No atheists in foxholes[?], I wasn’t in [just] one, I was in thirty.’
Religion requires some kind of theology. Where is their theology? All ID says that something brought forth the universe. Does ID mean God? No. Science teaches that an infinite unknowable force brought forth the universe. Does this mean God?
"Intelligent Design is in Fact Religiously Based"
So?
So...we don't teach religion in a science class.
Why?
The same reason we don't teach literature in a home economics class.
The reason we don't teach literature in home economics is because those two subject have seemingly absolutely nothing to do with one another. Just so that I understand you correctly, are you saying that religion and science have seemingly absolutely nothing to do with one another?
While it is true that science and religion have little to do with one another that has never stopped teachers from pointing out that science refutes religion. Once a teacher brings it up the subject of religion is fair game.
How are Science teachers ‘pointing out that Science refutes religion ’? It is true that Science does refute certain religious teachings, but that is incidental to the Science itself.
but once they bring it up, it is they that have brought religion into the classroom, and Christians then have a right to respond.
What counts as bringing it up? If a teacher explicitly states "and thus Evolution disproves X belief / religion " then they have stepped over their bounds... but if they just say "and that is how Evolution describes the origin of humans" then they are well within the bounds of Science.
But several textbooks or teachers have to go that extra mile and say, Evolution disproves X belief/ religion . When I was in school I never brought up religion unless a teacher brought it up first.
“But several textbooks or teachers have to go that extra mile and say, Evolution disproves X belief/ religion . When I was in school I never brought up religion unless a teacher brought it up first.”
That is an interesting point.
When talking about the historical context of Scientific discovery the prior beliefs are often cited, then it is shown how new discoveries overthrow the older beliefs. Since beliefs about the world often came from religion then it is inevitable that in such a discussion the statement X discovery disproves Y belief (assuming that Y belief was prevalent at the time / place that discovery X was made) would come up.
Would you agree that in discussing the development of a Scientific theory that bringing up prior beliefs is inevitable? Can you talk about how Galileo’s development of the heliocentric model without talking about the geocentric model (and thus showing that the religious belief in a geocentric model is not Scientifically valid)… I wonder if it is possible to logically have a discussion about the origins of a given theory without discussing the theories / beliefs present at that time without losing an important part of Scientific education (the process by which new theories supplant older theories).
My arguments that you dislike so much were developed as a quick defenses against those inevitable intrusions on religion . Otherwise religion has no place in scientific discussion. Science can not disprove religion and religion can not disprove science .
But Science can disprove specific religious beliefs, though not religion in general... Science disproved Apollo pulling the Sun across the sky on his chariot, the geocentric model, the global flood, daemons causing illness... and many more.
If Science cannot talk about the beliefs that existed at the time a discovery was made how are we supposed to describe how the discovery came about?
But then you can't leave religion completely out of the discussion.
“But then you can't leave religion completely out of the discussion.”
So it would appear… But should it be the teacher making the religious arguments? Or should the teacher of a Science class only argue from a Scientific position in response to a religious argument from a student? Would it be acceptable for a Hindu teacher to use an argument based on the Hindu scripture to refute Evolution?
The points I have come up with, were for students to use in those times when teachers seem to refute religion . Teachers should not endorse religious ideas.
And I've got no issue with that. The problem only emerges when a teacher uses their platform as a teacher to advocate a religious viewpoint in class.
ID does not necessarily require God. The universe is complex enough that some kind of artificial intelligence is possible. I would like to see more chaos theory and string theory ect. taught in the schools . I think that a study of the butterfly effect would show a rational intelligence independent of the need for a God. To prove God you would need to prove not only intelligence but sentience or self awareness.
"The universe is complex enough that some kind of artificial intelligence is possible."
If it occurs as a result of natural action then it is not an AI... which is the study and design of intelligent agents by humans.
"I would like to see more chaos theory and string theory ect. taught in the schools ."
The math required to have a basic understanding of the simplest parts of string theory are... complex... and that quantum chromodynamics, gague theory, and Yang-Mills theory are beyond the scope of a high school physics class.
Chaos theory is a bit more approachable... but the juicy bits still require some fairly serious math.
"I think that a study of the butterfly effect would show a rational intelligence independent of the need for a God."
What is your definition of Chaos Theory? Wikipedia has a fairly good one:
"Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics which studies the behavior of certain dynamical systems that may be highly sensitive to initial conditions ."
That definition does not seem to leave a great deal of room for an intelligent designer.
"To prove God you would need to prove not only intelligence but sentience or self awareness."
Curious. How can something have/be intelligent without self awareness or sentience?
A computer has intelligence without being sentient.Think of the strings in string theory as being the same as a computer circuit. The dynamical systems would then act the same way as a computer. Chaos theory shows a level of complexity that I think it is possible. Intelligence, without sentience, ID without a designer. To prove God it's not enough to prove intelligence, you have to demonstrate sentience.
"A computer has intelligence without being sentient."
You would define a computer as intelligent? That is quite a stretch the term intelligent. The computers that you and I have infront of us are nothing more then binary calculators, they not 'know' what information they hold... only that it is a string of binary. All a computer does is push 1s and 0s through a network of nand gates, what those 1s and 0s represent in the rWorld is entierly meaningless.
"Think of the strings in string theory as being the same as a computer circuit."
An interesting analogy, but not the most apt one. If string exist their level of interaction would far exceed that of a simple binary circuit. A complex enough computer could potentially model that interaction, but the number of interacting variables would be exceptioinally large...
"Chaos theory shows a level of complexity that I think it is possible. "
Chaos theory describes systems that are 'sensitive' to their initial conditions ... which is to say that a small change in initial conditions lead to very different patterns given a period of time.
"Intelligence, without sentience, ID without a designer. "
Youv'e widend the definition of intelligence to the point where it encompases the current theories... but in doing so have rendered that defintion largely meaningless.
the Strings in String theory do not 'care' about what particle they are a part of... they are interacting on a vastly different level. The string vibrating inside the quark inside the proton inside the carbon atom that is in my fingernail is not different (at that scale) from a string inside the hinge on the door to my home.
Thinking of a computer as having intelligence may be widening the definition, but that is what is usually meant by AI. If string operate at the level of AI you could explain the supernatural without the need for a sentient being. ID without the need for a designer. ID would then be true but largely meaningless.
The field of AI research is fairly broad... it encompasses things like expert systems learning networks. A "True" artificial intelligence would be one capable of independent reasoning and adaptation.
How would strings operating at the level of an AI explain supernatural occurances?
"ID without the need for a designer. ID would then be true but largely meaningless. "
Yes, if you expand the definition so wide and so general that it loses all meaning then ID becomes a meaningless philosophical construct.
The people behind ID clearly are trying to bring religion into the classroom through the back door. But to prove that a sentient being is responsible for ID you have to eliminate more scientific possibilities. The simplified explanation of the butterfly effect is that a butterfly moving his wings on the east coast could effect the weather on the west coast. If our subconscious could pick up on this butterfly effect or if the energy from our thoughts could have a butterfly effect this would explain a lot of what people call supernatural. What if the prophets of the Bible were some kind of idiot savants?
"The simplified explanation of the butterfly effect is that a butterfly moving his wings on the east coast could effect the weather on the west coast. "
That is often used as an example. However the impact that the butterflys wing has on the weather half way across the continent is like looking at the impact of one atom striking another at one end of a swiming pool impacting the temperature on the other side of the pool. There is a possible effect... but it would be so miniscule that it would not be noticeable by humans.
"If our subconscious could pick up on this butterfly effect or if the energy from our thoughts could have a butterfly effect this would explain a lot of what people call supernatural."
As I stated above the impact of that butterfly would be so small that it would be inconsiquential over human life spans.
The human mind has never been demonstrated to have that level of directed impact on the world around us. Though the electromagnetic signals in our brain do impact the world the energys present are far to small to produce a noticable effect... even if a human brain could reach that level of control over its own structire.
There are thousands of anecdotal stories most if not all could be explained if the subconscious can pick up on at least some of that inconsequential butterfly effect. The studies that have been done show that the brain is capable of a lot more then what most people are aware of.How much more is open to question. From your point of view that question has to be answered before anyone can answer the question of is there a God.
"There are thousands of anecdotal stories most if not all could be explained if the subconscious can pick up on at least some of that inconsequential butterfly effect."
Yet none of those stories has ever held up to rigorous testing.
"From your point of view that question has to be answered before anyone can answer the question of is there a God. "
Among other things, yes.
Well since they do not it is a true statement.
Intelligent Design has been misrepresented as some kackamamy religiously motivated scheme by those who are afraid to challenge what they believe in. This misrepresentation is not true. Intelligent design is a bold and controversial new theory based on careful examination of genetics, astronomy, and biology. It is rapidly spreading through the scientific community, despite the bad name put forward by the Ayn Rand center and others. This theory is not the eyeball example that everyone has heard. "The human eye is far too complex to have come into being by chance, mwah, mwah mwah, mwah mwah." No! That is an opinion, not scientific fact. Intelligent Design has demonstrated using genetics and statistics that the chances of even the simplest life randomly occuring are too small to be statistically valid. That is a fact, not an opinion. The logical conclusion, then, is that for life to exist, some kind of designer is required. Committed Secularists, Objectivists, and other followers of violently atheistic religions are now terrified that, for the first time in a long time, science supports theism. As a result of this terror, they are religiously attacking this threat.
Natural selection isn't "random". Misrepresented? I suggest you read the history on the recent Dover trial, very revealing.
ID is not a scientific theory, please read the definition of what constitutes a scientific theory (and not the layman's version).
I'd like to see the study that has actually calculated the statistical probability of life appearing. Has this appeared in peer reviewed scientific journals?
Please cite instances of violent atheists who committed acts in the name of atheism. I assume by violent you mean causing physical harm and destruction of property? I don't know of a single one but I certainly know of multitudes of religious people who have done so.
Religion is scary because it invokes mysticism over reason and attempts to transcend the concept of right or wrong. I am commanded by God to kill my own son, there is no right or wrong, only the word of God. Hardly makes sense.
Nobody ever said that natural selection was random. Straw man. (Oh look, more misrepresentation!) The random comes in when particles of RNA that came out of the primordial ooze aligned by chance in such a way to produce a single-celled organism. The chances of that occuring randomly are absurdly small. If you can achieve that, life springing forth from non-life, evolution , at least in theory, actually holds water, though there are other problems.
The rulings of a few partisan judges do not invalidate a scientific theory any more than O.J. being set free invalidates forensics.
Since your arbitrary definition of a valid definition will surely not include mine, no matter what mine may be, I'm not going to bother offering up a definition for you to reject out of hand, simply because it came from me. (Who died and made you the definition master, anyway?) Give me your definition, and I'll beat you on your own terms.
I believe the study mentioned above is already included in the Expert Debate section, as I seem to recall reading that on this very site.
Violent Atheists are easy to find. (see, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, etc.) Though I didn't mean physically violent, but rather verbally and ideologically hateful and intolerant, the above still holds true. Atheists are no less violent than the religious.
The perception of knowledge is scary because it rules out new information. If you think or believe that something is true, you will be willing to change what you think/believe in light of new evidence. How can you change what you know? If we know the Earth is flat, how can it be round? If we know there is no god, how can there be a designer?
"The random comes in when particles of RNA that came out of the primordial ooze aligned by chance in such a way to produce a single-celled organism."
By the nature of their physical makeup RNA will reproduce, given the right chemicals near by.
Experiments indicate that there were several stages between the original replicator molecules and the first cell, proto-cellular life that was able to replicate.
"The chances of that occuring randomly are absurdly small."
Yes, in a sense. But just because the chance is very very small does not mean that it is impossible. It only takes one replicator molecule to start the entire process, and given the number of molecules that would have been swirling around in the ancient earths oceans it is quite possible that somewhere a replicator will form... If I roll one dice the chance of a six coming up is 1 in 6... but if I roll a thousand dice the chance that at least one will be a six is rather good.
"Atheists are no less violent than the religious."
True... but how does that old saying go... "With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion ."
"The perception of knowledge is scary because it rules out new information. If you think or believe that something is true, you will be willing to change what you think/believe in light of new evidence. How can you change what you know?"
That is why Science is so important. We have to be able to test our ideas.
"If we know the Earth is flat, how can it be round?"
The question, Scientifically speaking, is how do we know that the Earth is flat? What tests can you run to show that the earth is flat?
"If we know there is no god, how can there be a designer?"
As stated above... Scientifically speaking how can we show that there is a god?
Your question also presumes that there is a designer... which has not been show in a Scientifically testable manner.
First off, the human Eye did not pop into existence by chance, it is the result of billions of years worth of evolution ... a process by which slight mutations (changes in the structure) proved advantageous and were passed down, leading to more complex structures.
I'm not sure how ID has been demonstrated by genetics and statistics... however you are avoiding the big question that ID raises.
If life is to complex to exist without a designer, then that designer cannot be a living thing. If the designer is not a living thing then what is it? What was the designers intentions, where is the designer now? What predictions does ID make regarding the future?
The whole point of bringing up the eye example is to demonstrate that ID is an actual theory, and not a simple example in which someone proclaims that something is too complex based on their own judgements. ID doesn't use the eye example. Scientists studying simple ribosomes forming in conditions similar to the beginning of the Earth have determined that the chances of those ribosomes forming into a cell by random chance are too small to be statistically signifigant. It is then logical to posit that something as yet unexplained by science caused this to happen. There is more, unfortunately, I am not a genetecist, so I can't accurately convey all the juicy details, but many genetecists have come out and said that a designer of some kind is required for genetics to exist. We don't know what the designer is. That's the whole point. It is as yet not understood by science. It's still a very new and basic theory. Those questions are all opinion questions.
"The whole point of bringing up the eye example is to demonstrate that ID is an actual theory, and not a simple example in which someone proclaims that something is too complex based on their own judgements."
- richardsonkr
If ID is an "actual theory," no doubt the answers to the following questions should be simple to produce.
1. What mechanisms are described by the Theory of Intelligent Design?
2. What predictions are made by the Theory of Intelligent Design?
3. How is the Theory of Intelligent Design falsifiable?
4. What observations are considered evidence for the Theory of Intelligent Design?
I guess I must be old fashioned - but I do believe in real science. And I do recall that scientific experiments have never given evidence to suggest that spontaneous generation occurs. That being true, why in the world do so many in the scientific community hold so tightly to the notion that somehow, out of the "primordial ooze", given just the right mixture of mud, slime and chemicals, a living single cell organism just sort of "poofed" into existence, complete with DNA, and able to reproduce. And then, that single organism just kept on changing into a new species every so often, which "evolved" over time into all of the plants and animal that we see on the earth today. Now, that is a monstrous stretch of the imagination, not to mention totally non-scientific, and at best, pure speculation and more likely pure nonsense. There is no evidence to support this idea.
So why is this theory of spontaneous generation at the very core of modern science today?
Years ago, without the tools of DNA analysis, and to appease those who funded certain "scientific experiments and writing", I can see how the evolution theory was ginned up, with the backing of some physical science and observation. It was a story easy to understand, and with the education of the day, it appeared believable. People said, "Aaaaah. Now I can sleep at night, knowing how I got here."
I understand that without some kind of creation theory, there is a huge "void" in understanding our existence: How did we get here? Where did we come from? What about the dinosaurs? However, I was taught via science at a young age that "just because you don't understand something or have evidence to prove it, you are not justified in making up a story to fill in the gaps, and then selling the idea as fact".
Very recent, extensive, highly sophisticated genetic studies have generated very compelling evidence to suggest that one species does not "evolve" or "give rise", over time to a separate species. While I believe that through "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" a species in a given area may prosper or decline, and through that "natural selection" process, certain physical or other attributes become more common in a species in a given area, genetic evidence suggests that one species does not "evolves" into another species over time.
The way I see it, Intelligent Design is just as viable a theory as spontaneous generation. In fact, even more believable. Why? Because:
1.) I am 100% certain that I am really here. I can prove it. I am proof that a living human species really does exist. There is real, hard evidence. And there is solid evidence that a huge variety of different kinds of living things exist today on this earth and have existed in the past.
2.) The Human species has a huge variability in physical and other attributes, but genetically we are all one species. We are not genetically linked to any other species on the planet.
3.) Since spontaneous generation does not work, how do you account for the fact that there is life on this earth? It had to have happened some way. There is an explanation.
4.) And since one species does not give rise to another different species, just how would you account for the incredible variety of living species on this earth today? There has to be some explanation.
4.) The notion of Intelligent Design, with all of the possibilities that goes along with it (including the notion that perhaps that entity is possibly the same species as I am) seems very plausible to me, and not nearly as flakey as clinging to a non-scientific notion of spontaneous generation, or that one species gives rise to another different species over time and thereby gave rise to all of the varieties of species on this planet today.
C'mon now. Let’s actually be scientific about this! Intelligent Design has as much merit as the non-scientific evolution theory. Intelligent Design DOES NOT necessarily imply "religion". Where does that notion come from? It merely implies an intelligent life form "could" have had a hand (or paw, or branch) in populating this planet with the wide variety of living things we see today.
So the way I see it, anyone with a sound scientific mind would consider it idiotic NOT to put forth Intelligent Design as a possibility.
"According to its advocates, the "designer" responsible for "intelligent design" in biology could be any sort of "creative intelligence" capable of engineering the basic elements of life. Some have even seriously nominated advanced space aliens for the role."
Now let's see, 100 billion galaxies ... but nah, mankind is the only intelligent being in existence.
"[a] premise seems to be that as long as [we] don't explicitly name the "designer"--as long as [we] allow that the "designer" could be a naturally existing being, a being accessible to scientific study--that this somehow saves [a] viewpoint from the charge of being inherently religious in character."
Absolutely. There are two basic reasons to postulate anything. (1) A desire for it to be true (agenda), or (2) it fits the evidence (objectivism). Regarding a designer or creator, there is a third motivation for another position. (3) A desire for total independence, and/or the belief that one has logic that eclipses traditional beliefs. Atheism is more of a position of arrogance than one of objectivism.
ID postulates on evidence, not a religious position. Arguing that it is a tactic or a guise, simply because it may be in some cases, fails objectivism. It is more of a deterministic stance, i.e. arrogance.
"One does not explain complexity by dreaming up a new complexity as its cause."
Sorry to go against William Occam's easily falsifiable viewpoint, but complexity is the more the norm than the exception. And not by happenstance, but by design.
--
complexity is the more the norm than the exception. And not by happenstance, but by design.
--
Sure, we know what mechanism can cause the apparent design of complexity.
--
Now let's see, 100 billion galaxies ... but nah, mankind is the only intelligent being in existence.
--
That we know of. It's called selection bias.
ID speculates on lack of evidence to suggest that our ignorance is best explained by something called design. Let's not confuse the matter by claiming that ID postulates anything relevant to science.