Posted on 11/03/2003 12:05:39 PM PST by Heartlander
CobaltBlue, such questions are entirely outside the purview of science -- any kind of science. Even scientific cosmology does not delve into the identity of the Creator, or any kind of deity or sub-deity, let alone a vastly advanced non-human. ID in particular is deliberately "agnostic" in its attitude regarding this question. (In comparison, Darwinism is typically, positively atheist.) For ID, it is enough to look at the design, and leave the Designer to the theologians and philosophers.
I don't disagree with you that God is the Intelligence and Will that created the universe and is moving it towards the fulfillment of its divine purpose. But to say as much would not be a scientific statement.
Just a gentle word to my co-religionists, humbly spoken: Perhaps fundamentalist Christians might want to consider their characteristic "mixing of metaphors" serves neither God nor science.
JMHO FWIW.
That merely make the universe its own designer - it doesn't mean there is no designer.
2. If biological life on earth was seeded by other civilizations in the cosmos (panspermia).
If it was an intentional act on the part of those civilizations, that makes them the designers - again, this doesn't mean there is no designer. And if it wasn't an intentional act on their part, what sense does it make to call it "design" in the first place? "Design" implies an act of will, not an accident ;)
I'm sure we can all spot the designer in both of those possibilities. I think you mean to say that this designer is not, necessarily, the God of the Bible.
One doesn't, general_re. But "design" can be a scientific question in a way that "Designer" -- or even "no-designer" -- can never be. To enter into such questions is to enter metaphysics. The "pro-God" (theist) and "anti-God" (atheist) positions both are ultimately metaphysical conceptions that have no place in the scientific disciplines.
"Design" implies designer, by the very definition of the word - it makes no sense to call an accident "designed". The fact that ID theorists decline to speculate about the identity of the putative designer does not mean that the theory does not require a designer of some sort, even if we stipulate to not knowing who that designer might be.
Well that's the issue that ID keeps pounding away at. The process is unknown.
But that doesn't mean at the same time that you can decide how probable it is. If it's unknown, it's unknown.
I like the "Darwin of the gaps" phrase though. I'm going to steal it. ;)
I hope people do not do this with the intent to deceive. I certainly don't when I use conventional science to substantiate a point in my theory of origins. Usually I am relying on the conclusions drawn in conventional research to illustrate that they also support a different paradigm.
At bottom, the YEC argument is a theological one. God is Truth and therefore Holy Scripture must be true as well. I do not at all disagree with this statement. However, problems arise when anyone believes that his understanding of Scripture is the only one acceptable to God.
Well, whattarelief, whattajoke.
I have noticed a certain modern rhetorical tendency: the attribution of nefarious motives to one's opponent, rather than engage in dispassionate analysis of the opponent's argument. I gather it's easier to declaim against bad motives and bad faith than to make a counterargument based on reason and evidence.
One doesn't, general_re.
My point exactly. Moving cars require drivers - the fact that I don't know the name of the person who just drove past does not mean that the car had no driver ;)
But "design" can be a scientific question in a way that "Designer" -- or even "no-designer" -- can never be.
Perhaps. The question then is, how can we identify "design" without making assumptions about the designer? What are the criteria by which we may know that something is designed or undesigned?
Indeed, the point of my reply is that the designer under Intelligent Design theory is not necessarily a single personality or being. The theory simply doesn't say - nor should it - because that would be outside of science as betty boop noted.
Ah, see, we weren't so far apart after all. Hopefully ;)
It's clear that ID theorists generally decline to speculate on the nature of the creator/designer, whether mortal or immortal, material or supernatural, or what-have-you. Nevertheless, by invoking a creator of some type, regardless of what that creator might be like, I don't think it's unfair to describe ID as one of many creationist theories. This would be in contrast to the many naturalistic/materialistic theories, which do not invoke a creator/designer (or creators/designers, for that matter), either in particular or in general.
Precisely. And I'll give $100 to your favorite charity if you find a peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal which claims to prove that there is no God.
What you will be able to find is essays by atheists, expressing their personal belief that God doesn't exist, but that's not science, either.
Yes, general_re. All you say is true. Yet you continue to miss my point. To reiterate: the Designer is not a proper scientific question. Only the putative design can properly be a matter for scientific investigation.
Perhaps you don't want it to turn out that the universe is designed (as ID alleges), because you can't stand the idea of the Designer. You begin with a massive pre-analytical prejudice. And so, to make your universe "safe" from God, you refuse to even look at evidence for design. As if that could ever make the evidence -- or God -- just "go away." All this sort of thing does is distort your view of what is actually before your own two eyes, leading you to conceptualize a false picture of Nature.
Agreed, CobaltBlue. That's certainly not science.
What one looks for in science is laws of nature that are uniform over time. You do not look for a designer of each and every snowflake, you look for regularities in the behavior of water molecules as they freeze.
ID may at some time become the accepted hypothesis, but it is going about its business backwards. Rather than arguing that certain things are irreducibly complex, it should be attempting to prove the null hypothesis, that complexities can be reduced. That is the honest and correct way to proceed in science. When you are proposing a new and unseen causitive agent, you must rule out known kinds of causation.
When faced with this issue the only metaphysically naturalist appeal remaining is "anthropic principle" which is kinda like covering one's ears and singing loudly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.