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:
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
ID misleading
You are not looking at it scientifically
PvM said:
quote
"The pro-IDers claim that "ID Uses Scientific Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive PredictionsDiscovery Institute on ID Uses Scien. Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive Predictions"
However this is false and misleading. First of all it is important to point out that by design, ID means the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance". Now what does this mean? This means that when science fails to have found an explanation for any particular system, ID argues that the default should not be "we don't know" but rather "design"."
/quote
I personally wouldn't attribute this kind of stuff to ID without more direct evidence than an "appearance" but a scientist wouldn't call this an explanation, (like you seem to think that IDists would), rather, (s)he would say that the so called, "appearance of design" that is often a common feature to these arguments, warrants further scientific investigation.
It is unfair for you to say that IDists will claim that this is the answer, end of story, when in fact, the science that is being begged by the "appearance" is only for further investigation into the "apparent plausibility" that there is some kind of strong anthropic constraint at work here that is a part of some good physical reason why we might be entirely necessary to the energy economy of the ecosystem to which we belong*.
You pretend like the "appearance" doesn't beg a real scientific question, because you are over-reacting to your perceived motivation of IDists, but not because you are thinking like an honest scientist would.
-A REAL country heard from
- island September 10, 2008 3:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hit a nerve?
--Island states--
You pretend like the "appearance" doesn't beg a real scientific question, because you are over-reacting to your perceived motivation of IDists, but not because you are thinking like an honest scientist would.
--
I am not sure what your argument is but given the ad hominem, I doubt that it is very relevant. Appearance of design does beg a real scientific question, however science has so far shown how honest scientists resolve this issue. After all, we know that us humans are very easily deceived in seeing design where there is none. This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation.
As to ID, what do they do to resolve the issue of appearance of design? Nothing really because they refuse to go beyond the design inference approach. Ask yourself, what have ID proponents done in this area?
Pray tell.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 8:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
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.
Apparently I did hit a nerve, yes...
... because I simply stated a common fact, and there was no "ad hominem" involved, but, as you stated, you "did not get the point", so you see it as an insult.
PvM says:
"Appearance of design does beg a real scientific question"
and
"This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation."
But is the adaptation guided by some higher agency to a specific end?... which is the question that the "appearance" calls for that is willfully ignored by scientists. Science doesn't give equal time to the guy that's standing over the body holding the smoking gun, (the most apparent implication of the evidence), because reactionary scientists think that it looks too much like god, so the single investigated possibility is strictly limited to... "This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation"... no matter how long it takes to prove it.
And they don't ever see this as the violation of the scientific method that it really is because they wrongly believe that "agency" necessarily equates to an intelligent agent...
Which makes the debate political, rather than scientific, much to the highly vocal chagrin of theoretically righteous scientists...
... which makes ID... a necessary evil to counterbalance the historically recorded fact that scientists are stereotypically anti-centric in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.
It is begrudgingly known to scientists as "Copernicanism".
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/06/23 /
http://knol.google.com/k/richard-ryals/the-anthropic-principle/1cb34nnchgkl5/2
http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2007/02/goldilocks-enigma-again.html
http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/very-strong-anthropic-principle.html
- island September 10, 2008 10:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Honest scientist
You are missing the point, the ad hominem is not that I did not understand your argument, I can see why, given your limited exposure to ID, you may have come to that conclusion. Rather, I was referring to your statement "honest scientist".
--Island--
But is the adaptation guided by some higher agency to a specific end?...
---
A good philosophical question and I think you and I would agree that this adaptation could have been guided by some higher agency, of course, by using a fully natural mechanism, such questions remain scientifically vacuous.
--Island--
Which makes the debate political, rather than scientific, much to the highly vocal chagrin of theoretically righteous scientists...
---
I think you are a bit to rough on your fellow ID proponents.
--Island--
Science doesn't give equal time to the guy that's standing over the body holding the smoking gun, (the most apparent implication of the evidence), because reactionary scientists think that it looks too much like god, so the single investigated possibility is strictly limited to... "This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation"... no matter how long it takes to prove it.
--
Where did we see God standing over the victim? The reason science does not give equal time to ID is because it presents nothing scientifically relevant, it's really that simple. Call it 'reactionary' or 'old fashioned' that scientists insists on something scientifically relevant.
Remember, design always remains a possibility, even when science manages to explain the supposedly 'designed' features, such is the nature of theology versus science. However, agency is never truly of the table, scientifically speaking, as ID very well realizes when it comes to historical sciences. So how come that, unlike these historical sciences, ID has failed to contribute in any meaningful manner?
- PvM
September 10, 2008 10:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
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.
Nope
PvM stated:
"A good philosophical question and I think you and I would agree that this adaptation could have been guided by some higher agency, of course, by using a fully natural mechanism, such questions remain scientifically vacuous."
No, that's false, and this empirically evidenced plausibility doesn't even have to be right for your convenient ignorance of the plausibilty to have proven my point:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990
- island September 10, 2008 10:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Design is always a theoretical possibility
--I wrote: --
"A good philosophical question and I think you and I would agree that this adaptation could have been guided by some higher agency, of course, by using a fully natural mechanism, such questions remain scientifically vacuous."
--
--Island--
No, that's false, and this empirically evidenced plausibility doesn't even have to be right for your convenient ignorance of the plausibilty to have proven my point:
--
I am not ignoring the plausibility, I told you as much when I stated that design always remains a possibility. What I am arguing is that a plausibility is not sufficient for it to be scientifically with merit. In fact, ID has shown nothing to go beyond its eliminative and thus highly unreliable approach to detect rarefied design.
Perhaps you can show us how ID has contributed in this area to make the question a scientifically tractable one?
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
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.
You ARE ignoring the plausibility...
You need to go back and read what was written because I never said anything that indicates that I think ID has merit.
PvM stated:
"I am not ignoring the plausibility"
Yes, you did quite clearly, when you said that "such questions, (adaptation guided by some higher agency to a specific end), remain scientifically vacuous."
ID was never implied. In fact, my example for adaptation that's guided by some higher agency was about as far from ID as you can get.
You said that questions about "fully natural mechanism ... remain scientifically vacuous".
I proved why they aren't and why your convenient ignorance of this fact proves my point.
You act like you don't even know what you said or responded to.
- island September 10, 2008 11:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Copernicanism isn't honest science...
PvM said:
Rather, I was referring to your statement "honest scientist".
So was I, and had you clicked on the very first link or even read the rest of the post, then you'd know why.
Pvm:
"I can see why, given your limited exposure to ID..."
LOL!
- island September 10, 2008 10:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The truth comes out...
PvM exposed his motives:
"I think you are a bit to rough on your fellow ID proponents."
I'm an atheist, a materialist, and a Darwinist, but you willingness to find god where no reason was given, proves just about everything that was said about how reactionary antifanatics hurt science just as much as any fanatical cretionist ever does.
So take your politics and vote.
- island September 10, 2008 11:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So take your politics and vote.
I surely intend to do so, but these issues go beyond questions of policy. I am not sure about reactionary antifanatics and how you believe it applies to me, but I can reassure you that rather than being fanatic, I am well informed and committed to my faith and good science. If that means I am guilty of some 'crime' in your eyes, then I plead willingly and proudly guilty as I stand for accuracy in science, freedom of religion and more.
I have many reasons to find 'god' and I am sure that I do not confuse my theology with my scientific endeavours, since both would suffer.
I am still somewhat lost as to the nature of your argument but at least I can attempt to address your confusions.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:34AM
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.
"MY" confusions... ?
I'm sorry that you are confused by very clear statements including much valid scientific information that show why you don't "stand for accuracy in science", but my experience dictates that your side of the political spectrum will still see you as the "winner", even without a single successful refutation anyway, so... no worries, confusion is a good tactic when you can't follow the facts.
- island September 10, 2008 11:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"ID has failed to contribute in any meaningful manner?"
You said "ID has failed to contribute in any meaningful manner?"
Wrong! Newton, Pascal, Einstein, and many others put stock in the ID theory. This is why they figured out what they did. With the assumption of ID you can bet that there is order to the natural world and that it its knowable. Einstein believed as much as people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and many others want to believe. After all, he was on a quest to discover the "Theory of Everything" or "to read the mind of GOD". When asked what was his objection to Quantum Mechanics he was quoted as saying, "I refuse to believe GOD would play chance with the Universe"
The better question is:
"What has evolutionary biology contributed in a meaningful matter?"
I'll help you out. Mr. Richard Dawkins said that using a computer program to map out piping to containers that over generations the program had calculated the perfect plumbing for this system. Then, proceeded to say that we see the same type of ducting system in canine livers.
Ha!
That simply means that (1)there was an intelligence behind both, and (2) your program sucked because it took more than one try.
If the bank took more than one try to deposit your check, you'd be pretty steamed. You be mad to continue banking with them.
So why then, do you trust a theory in which death & time are the heroes and is obviously lacking the same credentials that you claim apply to ID.
"Pull the beam out of your eye before trying to pull the splinter out of mine!"
Jesus of Nazareth
"Asking an atheist why he can't find GOD is like asking a thief why he can't find a police officer."
Kent Hovind
- archfilejockey
September 11, 2008 1:57PM
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.
Let's not add to the confusion.
I understand why ID proponents would like to embrace Newton and others as relevant to ID. And when pressed for details, the best they can come up with is that their faith guided them in developing scientific theories, theories which had no relevance to ID since it was based on methodological naturalism.
It's this regrettable confusion which may give ID more relevance in people's minds than it really deserves. Wanting to 'read the mind of God' can be a useful metaphor to spur scientific research to the same extent as 'wanting to discover a theory of everything' to better understand nature. One should not confuse this with ID having a meaningfull manner to science.
In fact, with Newton, one of the few ID explanations he provided, was shown to be quite wrong and it took until Laplace figured it out, to correct Newton's 'foolish' suggestion that since he could not understand how orbits of planets would remain stable, it would require God to actively correct these orbits.
The concept of God is one of faith alone, once you have accepted the existence, it is hard to imagine a world without, but similarly, to those who have not found the need or for those who were not grown up in a religious environment, the need for a God or gods seems rather foolish. And neither side really has compelling scientific arguments as to why one position should be better than others.
So let's not confuse these issues. ID is already confusing enough.
PS: Since you used double quotes to describe Einstein's response, it would be helpful to correctly quote him. It was not "I refuse to believe GOD would play chance with the Universe" but rather
"I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice." (Einstein in a 1929 letter to Max Born).
However, Einstein was hardly appealing to a God as guiding his quest for science.
--
Einstein clarified his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
---
Source: Wikipedia "Einstein"
- PvM
September 11, 2008 2:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
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.
You are completely missing the point
My main point was that it was their believe that "GOD" whatever those particular people meant by this is debatable and completely irrelevant to the main issue. The FACT is that they did believe in some type of higher intelligence imposing his will upon the natural world and creating specifically ordered systems. Without this they would have never thought to ask the questions.
Yes, I am aware of the latter quote from Einstein, however with the assumed ignorance of believers by non-believers no wonder Einstein, as well as Stephen Hawkins, have made statements about their belief in a "GOD" and retracted for fear of persecution.
As far as sources, this isn't a term paper. I will be more than glad to provide sources if asked, otherwise, READ.
Anyway, the main point was that they believed in some derivation of ID and we all know what they figured out. I am not saying an unbeliever can't contribute to science and the body of knowledge. However, starting off with a false assumptions such as EVERY LIVING THING HAVING A COMMON ANCESTOR, you're bound to miss some things.
Also, I asked a question. Dawkins has been asked at least once and was stumped and asked to stop the camera. In a documentary he discusses the program(see my original comment) which is not an application of evolution, but more of "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." DUH, I can come up with examples of when it took me more than one try to get some done correctly. Still, it's not an application of Darwinian evolution.
By the way, if you don't believe, I don't think you're stupid. I think you've been misled. I would love to tell and show you the truth. You don't have to believe what I believe, obviously. However, just because I don't believe what you believe doesn't mean I'm stupid either. I reached my conclusion on the Theism/Atheism debate by doing a little research. To assume someone else is wrong before doing the research or experimentation to prove otherwise is not only illogical, it's tragic.
In conclusion:
The contributions of people who do believe in a "GOD" are a direct application of ID, otherwise, they wouldn't have even tried to figure out what they did. Also, to try to interpret what Einstein meant is a little arrogant, let his words speak for themselves. The religious community has the same problem, they like to take whatever part of scripture and say this is what it meant. LET THE WORDS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, WE CAN READ TOO! Well, at least most of us.
For those wanting sources:
Search for "Richard Dawkins" on YouTube.com
Read "Universe in a nutshell" and "On the shoulders of giants" by Stephen Hawkins
Further Reading:
"The Irrational Atheist" by Vox Day
Thanks,
Michael
/>archfilejockey@yahoo.com
- archfilejockey
September 13, 2008 7:52AM
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.
Quoting Kent Hovind In An Intelligent Design Discussion Is A Mistake
"Archfilejockey" quoted Kent Hovind as saying: "Asking an atheist why he can't find GOD is like asking a thief why he can't find a police officer."
Unfortunately for Kent Hovind, he has no problem finding police officers and prison guards in his current residence - he's serving time in federal prison for tax-related crimes. Hovind is a Young Earth Creationist and has the dubious distinction of having other Young Earth Creationist individuals and organizations such as Answers in Genesis criticize his excessive zeal.
Quoting such ardent defenders of Young Earth Creationism as Kent Hovind in defense of intelligent design creationism is anathema to the Discovery Institute, as they continue to try desperately to convince the world that intelligent design creationism has scientific merit rather than religious merit.
- Paul Burnett
September 13, 2008 4:12PM
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.
Kent Hovind IS A GREAT MAN and is wrongfully imprisoned.
Hello,
I have heard numerous attacks on Kent Hovind, however I have heard no reasonable arguments against his words. As for his "crime", that little thing called "THE CONSTITUTION" specifically declares AD VALOREM taxes illegal. So...what "crime" did he commit. Just because an unconstitutional law is put into effect, citizens are not obligated to follow it even if it has not been ruled unconstitutional yet. Funny, I've know people that have been convicted of tax evasion/fraud but weren't sentenced with anywhere near what he was given.
I know all about Kent Hovind and find his imprisonment a moral travesty. While I don't believe everything he believes, I do agree with most of it.
If you have proof of an Old Earth, please share it. If not, it would be quite arrogant and ignorant to assume them incorrect.
Thanks,
Michael
- archfilejockey
September 15, 2008 8:56PM
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.
conflating evolution with the creation of the universe
Einstein's quotes are not supportive of ID, he was talking about the fabric of the universe, not the means by which species evolve. This is a common shell game played by ID proponents. They setup some premise based on the creation of the universe then draw a conclusion about evolution and hope that no one notices. Evolution and the creation of the universe (or the fabric of the universe) are not the same issue.
- reckoner
October 16, 2008 10:51AM
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.
???
"Evolution and the creation of the universe (or the fabric of the universe) are not the same issue."
Find an ID proponent who said otherwise.
- F2XL
October 22, 2008 8:37PM
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.
Looking at things scientifically?
Science is ultimately based on the scientific method, which is used to support and confirm physical and chemical laws. It is the application of those laws to the past that makes natural history possible and the application of those same laws to the future that makes it possible to make predictions.
The question is, what physical and chemical laws are in play in Intelligent Design? We know evolution is scientific because it does not contradict any scientific laws, we can make predictions based on evolutionary theory, and we can falsify it by finding a possible mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating beyond a certain limit, making evolution beyond the limits of a "created kind" impossible. But we have found no such thing, ever.
You cannot test to see if something in biology is "intelligently designed" by reference to scientific laws. Instead, you would ASSUME something is designed just because it looks complex and specific, but such complexity is indeed possible via natural selection, because complex organisms may have survival value over less complex organisms. DNA, RNA, and proteins are polymers, molecules that are made of repeating parts, and they can actually be of unlimited length, so their complexity is also unlimited.
In short, there is NO evidence for Intelligent Design. None. It is theology, nothing more.
- Dale Husband
September 11, 2008 11:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (8)
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.
AC Grayling v Fuller
Grayling explains, in his review of Fuller's latest book, quite well how ID is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous
--
Fuller has written about Popper; he seems to forget Popper’s killer point, namely, a theory that explains everything explains nothing. ID is such a theory; everything is consistent with it, nothing disproves it. The idea that there is such a thing as a deity behaves logically as a contradiction does (unsurprisingly, because the idea is indeed contradictory): anything whatever follows from it. (But presumably this is okay for Fuller because he was educated by Jesuits.)
--
AC Grayling, Origin of the specious, New, Humanist, Volume 123 Issue 5 September/October 2008
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1856
In his response, Fuller shows that he has fallen victim to the bait and switch of ID
--Fuller
But on to Grayling’s most glaring deficiency vis-à-vis the topic of Dissent over Descent: his sheer ignorance of ID’s argument structure, which is not that of a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) who looks for whatever evidence supports his pet theory. Generally speaking, ID is defended on the basis of what philosophers of science call “inference to the best explanation” for the plausibility of design over chance in nature
--
But ID is NOT about an inference to the best explanation, something trivially shown by asking any ID proponent how ID explains the bacterial flagella, which due to lack of sufficient scientific understanding was claimed to have been 'designed'
Of course, this somewhat foolish argument sets up Fuller for a scathing response
--Grayling:
I am, says Fuller, ignorant (sheerly so; this is the glaring deficiency in my case) of "ID's argument structure", which is - argument to the best explanation! Oh pul-eese! I ignored this bit in my review out of a kind of residual collegiality, for even among the toxicities that flow when members of the professoriate fall out, embarrassment on others" behalf is a restraint. But he asks for it. Argument to the best explanation! Look: there is a great deal we do not know about this world of ours, but what is beautiful about science is that its practitioners do not panic and say "cripes! we don't understand this, so we must grab something quick - attribute it to the intelligent designing activity of Fred (or Zeus or the Tooth Fairy or any arbitrary supernatural agency given ad hoc powers suitable to the task) because we can't at present think of a better explanation." They do not make a hasty grab for a lousy "best explanation" because they have serious thoughts about the kind of thing that can count as such. Instead of quick ad hoc fixes, they live with the open-ended nature of scientific enquiry, hypothesising and testing, trying to work things out rationally and conservatively on the basis of what is so far well-attested and secure. What looks like having a chance of being both an "explanation" and the "best" in a specific case turns on there being a well-disciplined idea of "best" for that specific case. But an hypothesis has no hope of becoming the best explanation (until a better comes along) unless it survives testing, is specific, and is consistent and conservative with respect to much else that is secure. This is a far cry from the gestural "best explanation" move that ID theorists attempt, which - and note this carefully - does not restrict itself to individual puzzles only, but applies to Life, the Universe and Everything. It has to, at risk of incoherence; and yet by doing so, it collapses into incoherence.
--
Well said. Seems that many people have fallen victim of the erroneous claim that ID is an inference to the best explanation. After all he should have consulted Dembski who is on the records as
--Dembski
As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: ”Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.
--
Are there still any ID proponents out there willing to defend the position?
- PvM
September 13, 2008 9:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
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.