The Smithsonian withdraws sponsorship of intelligent design film

NY Times ^ | 6/3/05

[Crackingham]

The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History has withdrawn its co-sponsorship of a showing later this month of a film that supports the theory of "intelligent design."

The museum said it would not cancel the screening of the film, "The Privileged Planet," but would return the $16,000 that the Discovery Institute, an organization that promotes a skeptical view of the Darwinian theory of evolution, had paid it.

Proposals for events at the National Museum of Natural History are reviewed by members of the staff, and it shares sponsorship of all events. After the news of the showing caused controversy, however, officials of the museum screened "Privileged Planet" for themselves.

"The major problem with the film is the wrap-up," said Randall Kremer, a museum spokesman.

"It takes a philosophical bent rather than a clear statement of the science, and that's where we part ways with them."

[jennyp]

Why do you presume that all things that operate in an "orderly" fashion are intelligently designed?

Can you give me a thoroughly scientific theory, or reason, as to why I should presume otherwise?

No, you cannot infer a thing about the design without already knowing something about the designer. The design's regularity totally depends on the design goals and/or aesthetic sense of the designer. Without an explicit statement from the designer as to his/her goals, the best you can do is infer what the object under study should look like based on what you think or prefer their goals should be.

Without clicking on the picture, can you tell me if this picture was designed or not?

[Dimensio]

Can you give me a thoroughly scientific theory, or reason, as to why I should presume otherwise?

You're the one making the assertion. You're the one who has to support it. It is fundamentally dishonest of you to make an assertion and declare that it is established fact until proven wrong despite the fact that you've offered no evidence for it, but then fundamental dishonesty is nothing new from you.

No. I admit that my falsification criteria was lacking.

Which is to say that it wasn't an actual criteria for falsification at all, because you admit that an observation such as the one you described would not prove ID false.

As I later clarified, to falsify intelligent design the universe as we know it must disintegrate, thereby disallowing for any intelligence or design.

Why would an intelligently designed universe never disintegrate?

[aNYCguy]

After having all but claimed that there is abundant evidence for a creator, you offer this? You have said, essentially, "You exist. You can see. I don't understand evolution. Therefore there is an intelligent creator."

Would you mind offering me the rest of this ample evidence since I'm unimpressed so far?

[Fester Chugabrew]

You're the one making the assertion.

You're the one who claims intelligent design has little or nothing to do with The Law of Gravity. Since it takes intelligence to explain the Law of Gravity, and since it behaves consistently, I'll consider it as such. I am asking you for scientific evidence to support your assertion that the Law of Gravity, and other aspects of the universe that manifest themselves to reason and senses, can do so entirely apart from the aid of intelligent design.

Which is to say that it wasn't an actual criteria for falsification at all . . .

Correct. The only way for intelligent design to be falsified is for human observers (capable of logic and expression) to no longer exist and thus engage in science. As long as there are human observers, there will be reason and senses to interpret the data. There can be no obervation or collection of data without intelligent design as part of the process.

Why would an intelligently designed universe never disintegrate?

For the same reason intelligently designed cars are built to last, namely purpose. Or do you intelligently design things for no reason at all?

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . can you tell me if this picture was designed or not?

It is designed, and on more than one level. How much do I need to know about the desgner to know that much? Do I need to know if the designer is male or female? Its birthdate? Its full intentions in creating this design?

My first clue: I can see it.

[Dimensio]

You're the one who claims intelligent design has little or nothing to do with The Law of Gravity.

No, I'm merely pointing out that you are arrogantly asserting as fact that gravity is an intelligently produced result without bothering to provide any evidence, and then demanding that everyone else "prove you wrong" and until then your unfounded assumptions get treated as fact.

Since it takes intelligence to explain the Law of Gravity,

Any explanation requires intelligence because without intelligence you don't even have a language for formulating an explanation. This is not evidence that the underlying thing being explained is itself intelligent. There is absolutely no logic to your argument whatsoever.

and since it behaves consistently, I'll consider it as such.

Again, why is consistency evidence of intelligence? Why couldn't something that wasn't intelligently produced behave consistently? Be specific.

I am asking you for scientific evidence to support your assertion that the Law of Gravity, and other aspects of the universe that manifest themselves to reason and senses, can do so entirely apart from the aid of intelligent design.

Yes, you're asking this because you're assuming your conclusion. You're assuming your conclusion because you're fundamentally dishonest and cannot admit that your assertions have no evidence behind them.

Correct. The only way for intelligent design to be falsified is for human observers (capable of logic and expression) to no longer exist and thus engage in science.

If human observers no longer exist, then there are no observations that would falsify ID. If there are no observations that would falsify ID, then ID is non-falsifiable. If ID is non-falsifiable, then it is not science.

Thank you for your admission.

For the same reason intelligently designed cars are built to last, namely purpose.

So "intelligently designed" cars never, ever break down and become useless? So nothing that is "intelligently designed" is ever "designed" to have a limited lifespan?

[Elsie]

Look, you told me my statement was false, when it is clearly not.

Your original statement, as typed, was untrue, as YOU YOURSELF know, because you immediately changed it!

I responded to the first, before even SEEING your second.

---

When I DID read the second, it STILL struck me as untrue.

When reading what I had typed about it, you AGAIN changed what was typed, to what you REALLY was thinking.

I'm sorry you have taken this so personally as an attack on your character or something.

Words have meanings, and the lack of them have consequences.

---

As to my screenname, PatrickHenry will have to fill you in on details, as you've obviously already made up your mind as to WHY I use it.

[Elsie]

I like it :)

Looks like you two are....

Birds of a Feather!

[Elsie]

HMmmm... it uses more paint than Washoe usually does.

Can you zoom in a bit so we can see brush strokes??

[Elsie]

I suggest you reread his post, this time for comprehension.

 

 

 When it comes to speciation, there are rarely fine lines. There are probably many generations of grey area before it becomes clear that a certain subgroup of Species A has evolved into Species B.

-- Modernman #210

---

Sure. However, that doesn't mean that a member of one species of hominid gave birth to a member of another species.

-- Modernman #198

---

There never was a distinct division between human and non-human except in the the creationist strawman.

-- B_Sharp #202

---

The process is more likely that over many, many generations Species A goes through a gradual process where you have Species A, A1, A3, A4 etc. At some point species A10 (or whatever) drifts far enough away from the rest of its species that we end up calling it Species B. Perhaps Species' A1-A9 all die out. Perhaps Species A10 gets isolated from Species A1-A9 and drifts too far away from the other subspecies to interbreed with them.

-- Modernman #210

 

 

And I suggest you remember all the OTHER stuff that been said on the subject and then convene with other believers in "E" to get your story straight.

 

[donh]

The NSF doesn't have a track record of burning people it has disagreements with at the stake.

Hehe. They just don't want to get their hands dirty.

Are you really arguing that the National Science Foundation has, or is going to have, a secret cabal within it to burn luddites at the stake? Please feel free to feature this argument next time you appear before a schoolboard.

[Fester Chugabrew]

This is not evidence that the underlying thing being explained is itself intelligent.

I have in no way attempted to acribe intelligence to the Law of Gravity itself, as if it were a personal entity. What I am sayinmg is, because it behaves consistently it thereby demonstrates an attribute that intelligent beings have, and therefore is evidence that an intelligent being has something to do with its existence. It is not at all unreasonable to make, or infer, a connection between objects that share a common attribute. In fact, that is precisely what adherents of the philosophy of evolution do.

Again, why is consistency evidence of intelligence?

Because intelligent beings, among other things, are generally consistent. The Laws of Nature are evidence from which any sentient being is able to reasonably infer intelligent design, and they are able to do so because those Laws act with a great deal of consistency.

Yes, you're asking this because you're assuming your conclusion.

No, I'm asking this because I want to hear an answer. How can nature manifest itself to reason and senses without any attributes, or evidence, of intelligence or design? It's a simple question which you studiously avoid addressing, because your own assumed conclusions are being challenged.

For the same reason intelligently designed cars are built to last, namely purpose.

So "intelligently designed" cars never, ever break down and become useless?

I fail to see the connection between "purpose" and "durability." Intelligent design is employed for specific purposes. It happens when people build cars, and it happens as God built and sustains the Laws of Nature.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Are you really arguing that the National Science Foundation has, or is going to have, a secret cabal within it to burn luddites at the stake?

Like I said, they don't want to get their hands dirty. Besides, cultivating ignorance in the name of science is more effective.

[Dimensio]

I have in no way attempted to acribe intelligence to the Law of Gravity itself, as if it were a personal entity. What I am sayinmg is, because it behaves consistently it thereby demonstrates an attribute that intelligent beings have, and therefore is evidence that an intelligent being has something to do with its existence.

I can't even begin to fathom the twist of logic that you employed to come to this "conclusion". Why not conclude that intelligent beings, having attributes in common with the natural workings of the universe, are a product of the natural workings of the universe? Why do you assume causality in one direction when your "reasoning" -- if it can be called that -- doesn't necessarily imply any specific direction?

In fact, that is precisely what adherents of the philosophy of evolution do.

Except in the case of evolution there is 1) actual evidence to show the direction of descent, which you haven't provided for your alleged analog and 2) it's founded in more than just common properties but also a demonstratable mechanism for distributing said common properties. You have yet to provide a mechanism for an intelligent agent to create a "Law of nature". If you can explain how an intelligent agent of some sort created gravity, you might have a case.

Because intelligent beings, among other things, are generally consistent.

1) Explain how they are "consistent". Be specific.

2) The sky is generally blue. My car is blue. Therefore the sky created my car.

The Laws of Nature are evidence from which any sentient being is able to reasonably infer intelligent design, and they are able to do so because those Laws act with a great deal of consistency.

How do we know that the "Laws of Nature" weren't what created intelligence, thus the propensity of intelligent entites to behave in a consistent fashion much like the Laws of Nature? On what basis do you assume the line of descent here?

How can nature manifest itself to reason and senses without any attributes, or evidence, of intelligence or design?

Why shouldn't it be able to do so? "Reason" is a human construct, it only exists as a concept amongst humans, it's not an inherent property of nature apart from being a property of humans (which is a subset of the property nature). The "senses" are just a result of nervous system impulses in response to stimuli typically external to the organism. Your question is nonsensical, it's like asking "if the moon isn't made of green cheese, how do we see it?"

It's a simple question which you studiously avoid addressing, because your own assumed conclusions are being challenged.

I'm not making conclusions. You're the one asserting that there is evidence for Intelligent Design. I'm sick of asking for evidence of it and either getting circular reasoning or the utterly dishonest counter of "prove me wrong!"

I fail to see the connection between "purpose" and "durability."

You're the one who asserted that an intelligently designed universe will never break down. Don't blame me for the concept of durability when you're the one who introduced it.

Intelligent design is employed for specific purposes. It happens when people build cars, and it happens as God built and sustains the Laws of Nature.

The "God built and sustains the Laws of Nature" is your conclusion. Don't assume it as part of your argument, it makes it look like you don't actually have an argument. Now answer the question: why would an intelligently designed universe never break down when an "intelligently designed" car would?

And while I'm at it: another question. How could you tell an "intelligently designed" system from one that is not? Given that you assume that everything in the universe is the result of intelligent design, and thus nothing that you can observe isn't unintelligently produced, what is your basis for comparison?

[donh]

Like I said, they don't want to get their hands dirty. Besides, cultivating ignorance in the name of science is more effective.

So...I guess your argument is that the NSF wants to secretly burn luddites at the stake, by continuing to encourage scientific thinking as it presently conceives it. Very subtle.

[b_sharp]

I see you still have difficulty in understanding our point. I will assume your obtuse behaviour is unintentional and accidental so will try to clarify it for you.

"When it comes to speciation, there are rarely fine lines. There are probably many generations of grey area before it becomes clear that a certain subgroup of Species A has evolved into Species B.
-- Modernman #210 "

Modernman says here that although the change from one species into two species, a parent species and a daughter species, is so gradual that is is difficult to perceive the change, after enough generations have gone by the difference will be distinct enough for the two groups to be considered different species.

" Sure. However, that doesn't mean that a member of one species of hominid gave birth to a member of another species.
-- Modernman #198

Any parent and offspring are close enough in morphology to be the same species, just like your father and you are the same species but you have some different alleles than he, and in fact sport, on average, 6 or 7 mutations he doesn't have. The separation between species can only be observed when the differences accumulate over a large number of generations.

"There never was a distinct division between human and non-human except in the the creationist strawman.
-- B_Sharp #202"

The lack of distinction between human and non-human, as my response to your statement about a human being born from a non-human states, is in the almost imperceptible change from one generation to the next, that will result in very large changes in morphology over thousands of generations. In other words: No change of species within successive generations, but change in species between the two extreme endpoint generations.

" The process is more likely that over many, many generations Species A goes through a gradual process where you have Species A, A1, A3, A4 etc. At some point species A10 (or whatever) drifts far enough away from the rest of its species that we end up calling it Species B. Perhaps Species' A1-A9 all die out. Perhaps Species A10 gets isolated from Species A1-A9 and drifts too far away from the other subspecies to interbreed with them.
-- Modernman #210 "

See the three points above.

[b_sharp]

Lots of practice I'm afraid. ;-)

[b_sharp]

Fester, I want to thank you for the excellent post. It shows quite graphically, succinctly and pointedly why ID is not a science and should not be taught as a science.

Again, thank you for making our point for us.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Why do you assume causality in one direction . . . ?

Because that is what the text of Genesis states.

On what basis do you assume the line of descent here?

The text of Genesis. The universe exists because God created it out of nothing and sustains it to this day.

You're the one who asserted that an intelligently designed universe will never break down.

No. What I asserted was that a total disintegration of the universe would provide evidence of the absence of intelligent design. As it is, the universe exists, it is orderly, and thus gives evidence of intelligent design. Even a five-year-old knows as much.

I'm not making conclusions.

You have my BS-meter pegged. You've concluded that intelligent design has little or nothing to do with the universe as you know it, and so the evidence, unfalsifiable as your own premise is, will always fit your preconceived conclusion.

The "God built and sustains the Laws of Nature" is your conclusion.

Exactly. It is my operative assumption, based upon the text of Genesis. It is also the operative factor in all of science, even those who go to great pains in denying it.

More evidence: An intelligent designer would create a number of stable elements that could be combined for various purposes. Lo and behold, we have a periodic table of elements that behaves with such consistency as to aid life. Some stable, some not, but all working together for a purpose.

"Reason" is a human construct . . .

How do you know? Is there a scientific study that bears this out, or are you flying by the seat of your pants? How can reason exist without intelligent design?

[Dimensio]

Because that is what the text of Genesis states.

So you admit no rational basis for your assumption. You're back to appealing to religion, demonstrating that my intitial assessment of ID not being science was correct.

The text of Genesis. The universe exists because God created it out of nothing and sustains it to this day.

Again you assume your conclusion, meaning that you were lying when you denied doing so earlier.

No. What I asserted was that a total disintegration of the universe would provide evidence of the absence of intelligent design.

An assertion that you have failed to support; you have not explained why intelligent design requires that the universe never disintegrate.

As it is, the universe exists, it is orderly, and thus gives evidence of intelligent design. Even a five-year-old knows as much.

We're adults here, so we're using adult reasoning, not five-year-old "because I said so" arguments. Asserting that "order" is a product of intelligence is not the same as providing evidence for the assertion.

You have my BS-meter pegged.

I think you'll find that your readings are the result of feedback from your own postings.

You've concluded that intelligent design has little or nothing to do with the universe as you know it,

You are lying. I have "concluded" nothing. I have simply asked you to support your conclusions of intelligent design.

and so the evidence, unfalsifiable as your own premise is, will always fit your preconceived conclusion.

Wrong. I am demonstrating that the "evidence" that you claim to provide is nothing more than empty assertions and question-begging.

More evidence: An intelligent designer would create a number of stable elements that could be combined for various purposes.

Why would an intelligent designer do this?

Lo and behold, we have a periodic table of elements that behaves with such consistency as to aid life.

How do we know that this is a product of intelligence? How do you go from "an intelligent designer would do something this way" to "this must have come about through intelligent design"? How have you concluded that such an occurance is impossible without intelligent intervention?

Some stable, some not, but all working together for a purpose.

How have you discerned a purpose? Be specific.

How do you know?

If you have evidence that reason is more than that, provide it.

Is there a scientific study that bears this out, or are you flying by the seat of your pants?

It's a matter of definition rather than scientific explanation.

How can reason exist without intelligent design?

It can't. Humans -- intelligent agents -- "design" reason. That is not evidence of intelligent design in the universe.

Thank you for once again providing my point: Intelligent Design "theory" is not science, is founded in no evidence and has nothing going for it apart from question-begging, empty assertions and assumptions of the conclusions (as you do when you assume Genesis to be accurate).