Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win

Tech Central Station ^ | 7 Oct 2005 | Douglas Kern

[edsheppa]

This means that even if God is encoding "messages" ... it is impossible to test for them

Not necessarily. If the "message" is of sufficiently low complexity, we could conceivably stumble upon it. Some argue that the so called fine-tuning of physical constants is just such a "message." I think that's bunk - I see no way to test for this "message" being a message from God. How does one go about constraining a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent being sufficiently to make a testable prediction?

But obviously one could choose to accept it as such on a philosophical basis.

[Avenger]

"If random can not be proven, perhaps it is because there is no such phenomenon."

No, the reason randomness cannot be proven is due to the limitations of logic and computation; it has nothing to do with whether there exist random phenomenon in the physical universe or not. It is possible that nothing is random, but this is completely unprovable one way or the other. This is precisely why ID can never be made a rigorous scientific theory...unless one is willing to put limitations on the complexity of God's mind. If you put explicit restrictions on the resources of God's mind (space and time resources) then it becomes possible to test whether or not a particular sequence is beyond the capacity of God's mind or not. But are you willing to admit such restrictions? If so, what would those restrictions be?

[edsheppa]

Ah, quintessential Dembski - riddled with sophistry. The fellow is a better liar than Clintoon.

[silverleaf]

Darwinist ping. Surf's up!

[Avenger]

Not necessarily. If the "message" is of sufficiently low complexity, we could conceivably stumble upon it.

---

My point was that ID is non-falsifiable because God could be manipulating the universe in an extremely subtle and complex manner which is mathematically impossible to distinguish from randomness. But yes, if some ID advocate conjectures, for example, that God puts little smiley faces on neutrons and signs all protons "Love God" and this is later confirmed then that would be pretty impressive evidence.

[k2blader]

"Win" what??

ID is not what saves.

In fact, it can even lead further astray.

[edsheppa]

I know MANY SCIENTISTS who support ID in one form or another, believing that Darwinian theory is simply not adequate to explain the way life apparently arose on Earth.

That is fallacious reasoning. Even if the theory of evolution is found ultimately to be incomplete or even wrong, it does not follow that ID is either right or even scientific.

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Ping.

As I've been saying, Darwinist TOE is just a flapping corpse. Its adherents can enjoy the ride for a little longer; there's only a little time left for their screeching and censorship to successfully prevent the legitimate discussion of legitimate criticism. They're shoring up the defense of their citadel by attempting to prevent any debate (apostacy), but the doors are shaking.

It's really quite funny - if the TOE was defensible, they would welcome questions and criticisms in order to defeat them. But no, no questions allowed. Anyone who has doubts - reasonable, legitimate doubts - about neo-Darwinism, is by definition labeled a kook, a knuckledragger, a religious wacko (even if not religious) and not allowed into the discussion. Only saluting true believers allowed.

It's been an interesting theory.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

[RightWhale]

Okay, ID wins. Wins what, who knows, maybe the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, can we get on with things?

[edsheppa]

But yes, if some ID advocate conjectures, for example, that God puts little smiley faces on neutrons and signs all protons "Love God"...

Hehe. I guess we'll view these messages with little quark microscopes.

As an aside, I've actually seen an ID "prediction" that the genome encodes a "user's manual" or some such. What a bunch of clowns. Not only is not a deduction of any theory (and hence is not a prediction of any theory) but it isn't even analogous to the only kind of design we know, our own. I know of no human designed clock (to borrow their favorite trope) that contains its own user manual within its own workings.

[Avenger]

"It is interesting that the proponents of the theory of evolution seem to find ID very scary and threatening. Why is that? For the most part, those on the ID side don't fear the theory of evolution."

Well, let's see now...could it be perhaps because of...Satan!

[AFPhys]

I agree with your observation.

I'm not a supporter of ID, or of creationism, or of Darwinian theory. I honestly don't know enough about any of them. What bothers me so much about the battle against ID is that the Darwinians are so bound and determined to prevent anybody from bringing up possible alternative theories!

That is just plain weird to me, and bespeaks insecurity.

True science puts all the facts out on the table, works on poking holes in every theoretical explanation, invites alternate explanations, publicizes all results not only supporting, but it absolutely REVELS in anomalous results and enjoys debating alternate explanations.

What is it that makes the Darwinians so defensive? I guess I realize enough about the field to know that there are some big holes, but why can't they stand the theoretical discussion about whether some form of ID is needed to explain those holes? Instead, they put it up as THE solution, they ask your faith that Darwinianism can explain every hole, and insist that all other possible explanations must be banned not only from public discussion, but from all public knowledge.

To me, this is very akin to something I've far more knowledge of: the "global warming" debate. The Kyotoists don't want people to know that the Sun has cyclic behavior and have forever denied that it does by leaving that out of their "models", despite the fact that nearly all the Earth's "warmth" comes from the Sun! They have kept people under their influence for many years refusing to let people know that they are hiding perhaps the most important factor of all! Nyah,Nyah,Nyah,Nyah - I can't hear you!

Sorry, that doesn't wash in science. It shouldn't wash in the discussion about evolution, ID, or creationism, either.

[toadthesecond]

If creation/ID ends up getting offered as an alternative in biology classes, it's only fair that big bang/evolution gets taught in sunday school.

[Nicholas Conradin]

To see another view of the debate over ID, read "Descent of Man in Dover" by Sallie Baliunas on TCS today.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498507/posts

[metmom]

Evolutionists work from the presumption that science cannot measure or "prove" God; that He is outside the realm of science. They have automatically limited themselves in the scope of their work and could not find or recognise God if He hit them over the head with a 2 by 4 because they have already concluded that whatever they discover is a natural occurance. How do they KNOW that God could never be determined through the scientific process? Just because someone decided however long ago that God is religion or supernatural, doesn't mean that He couldn't be discovered through scientific means if they gave themselves a chance. There's a lot of reality out there that can't be measured: Ideas, thoughts, emotions... They've hemmed themselves in a small, cold, purposeless world and want everyone else to be there, too.

[Richard Axtell]

"Science is not a democracy."

"I agree; it has the stench of totalitarianism all over it."

I think it would be better said that science is not "politics". Political arguments mean nothing, only facts, evidence, and theorems provable via experimentation have any relevance, and we seldom see any of that in politics. What we see in this whole Evolution vs ID debate IS politics... arguments flavored with rhetoric, based on semantics, and supported with a loose and unbalanced treatment of the facts.

Politics, in that sense is eternal, Science can and does change its "accepted truth" when new explanations of natural phenomena are proven, and accepted. The corruption of science clearly then would be any interjection of politics, meant to persuade "belief" and acceptance in a given theory, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of proof. This is my understanding, and why I do not see "evolution vs ID" as a scientific debate.

[bobdsmith]

"Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel." Eberhard Dennert, At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904. (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

It's now 2005. How long must we wait?

[AFPhys]

That sounds like a real deal:

Mentioning ID in mandatory public schools plus making Sunday School mandatory with evolution being mentioned there.

The situation is not even close to symmetrical.

[little jeremiah]

Have you read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" or "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism"?

Try 'em if you haven't. The facade is crumbling, and not due to any religious beliefs. It's crumbling due to actual science. That's why evo-fundies don't want to allow the least little bit of disagreement, criticism or questions. The holiness of the TOE must not be tainted with any doubt. But it's looming.

[AFPhys]

I believe God made His universe, and me.

Personally, I don't really concern myself with the details as to how He did so. I don't believe He cares a whit about whether that even matters to me, or my views about ID, evolution, or creationism.

Furthermore, I welcome discussion about all those concepts and viewpoints, and I argue with those fundamentalists about their insistence that "you must believe in creationism" just as vehemently as I do with the Darwinians who try to suppress alternatives. Not a one of them was there, nor do any of them have perfect insight into His Word and its meaning.

Not only that, but I insist that THERE CAN BE NO PROOF that God exists or that He had a part in the "intelligent design" of the universe or the Earth and its life. If I could absolutely, positively PROVE without any room for doubt to someone that God was a necessary factor for the existence of the universe/life - that would remove an ESSENTIAL part of the "free will" that He gave us. There might be evidence for that, but there can never be absolute "proof" - nor, I predict, will there ever be absolute "proof" Darwinism is sufficient.

I believe it is very important for both sides of this discussion to be powerfully advocated. I enjoy seeing the evidence on both sides, just as I enjoy evidence regarding "cosmic super strings", or "gluons and glueballs", etc., that also will not play any part in my salvation, but are nevertheless part of this wonderful "playground" that God made for me and you.

For this reason, I view this subject as one that is worthy of debate and discussion and research, but I neither expect definitive results, nor do I fear the discussion.