The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Skeptic Online ^ | May 2006 | David Brin

[Dimensio]

Yes you have, by default.

No, I have not. I have made no assumptions regarding the cause of "organized matter performing specific functions", as I have no means by which to draw a conclusion on the matter.

As such your objections to ID are not scientific.

This is a non-sequitur.

I reckon that shoots any notion of evolution square in the buns.

Please explain this. No biologist thus far has found a contradiction between that fundamental axiom and the theory of evolution.

Is this axiom subject to empirical proof? What makes it more scientific than the dearly beloved FSM?

As I have said, it is an axiom. It is the starting assumption of science. All further observation and explanation follows from that axiom.

No, I am not.

Then please provide a test for your claims.

I maintain that the presence of organized matter performing specific functions may reasonably be inferred as a product of intelligent design.

How may this inference be tested? What hypothetical observation would falsify this inference?

My claims extend to organized matter, and to that extent they are testable.

Then please provide a test.

Further inferences and assumptions, like all inferences and assumptions, are not subject to empirical proof. That does not make them "unscientific."

Scientific explanations are more than "inferences and assumptions". Claiming that an inference and/or an assumption is on par with a comprehensive scientific theory backed by years of research and evidence is not honest.

[Dimensio]

Well I disagree to an extent. Where Christian teachings do deal with scientific issues, such as creation, then a fair examination of the evidence is in order.

Unless I am mistaken, Christian teachings on creation invoke supernatural elements. Supernatural elements are outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. Any claims invoking supernatural elements are not scientific.

There are scientists who interpret geologic findings as supportive of a massive water catastrophe and pointing to something different than Old Earth. Both interpretations should be explored.

The interpretation of a global flood has been observed, and soundly rejected by the majority of the geological community.

[DannyTN]

"Supernatural elements are outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. Any claims invoking supernatural elements are not scientific."

Well the problem is the labeling of things as "supernatural" and thus attempting to exclude them from scientific study.

Only God is natural. Everything else is a creation and thus supernatural. If the evidence points to an outside influence in the development of living things, then so be it. Whereever the evidence leads that's science.

I say that to the extent that you can study God either directly or by inference through his actions past or present, He should be included in Science.

Now admittedly He doesn't subject Himself to laboratory procedures prefering to deal in matters of man's heart. I think he does leave a considerable trail of evidence. But it's evidence of His choosing. No scientist is going to order him into a laboratory for study. Any more than democratic skeptics are going to get Bush to turn over all executive papers for their scrutiny. I suspect that if God did submit himself to the laboratory, so that Man would have no choice but to admit that He is, than man would effectively have no choice whether to worship Him or not. Sure I know of one Freeper who acknowledges God's existence but chooses not to worship him, but his choice seems complete illogical and foolhardy to me. And there was a point where God was actually going to live among Israel and as His glory shown over the mountains, the people of Israel realized there was no way they were going to survive with a Perfect Holy Just All Powerful God in their presence, and they quickly had a change of heart and asked him to keep a distance.

[DannyTN]

"I doubt it. I think there are probably a majority who, either because of unexplained anomolies, or the repeated success of the principle that there's nothing special about our little corner of the universe, entertain some form of ID, or panspermic notion. "

You know if you are right that the majority of scientists entertain some form of I.D., then maybe it's because they are seeing evidence that leads them to conclude that. And maybe they do us a disservice by not discussing that evidence. No doubt it's probably hard to quantify.

But if you don't discuss it, it will never be quantifiable.

When I do a financial analysis or acquisition study, I lay out the numbers in a very scientific manner. But then I go back and discuss things that I see as strategic issues that can influence those numbers. And sometimes those strategic issues are simply not quantifiable. Nevertheless they are important, sometimes a lot more important than anything I can quantify.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Then please provide a test.

The test for organized matter is intelligibility. The hypothetical falsification would be the disintegration of particle matter into chaos. Intelligent design may also be considered axiomatic, insofar as science can only explore what is intelligible. You say scientific explanations are more than "inferences and assumptions," but science cannot take place without them as a foundation. Years of scientific research back the idea of intelligent design, because all this time science has only been able to deal with what is intelligible.

[Dimensio]

Only God is natural. Everything else is a creation and thus supernatural.

I believe that you are redefining "natural" and "supernatural" to definitions not used by science. Redefining terms does not demonstrate your point, however.

If the evidence points to an outside influence in the development of living things, then so be it. Whereever the evidence leads that's science.

If the outside influence is outside of the fundamental properties of the universe, and thus not constrained by them, then this outside influence cannot be explained by science.

I say that to the extent that you can study God either directly or by inference through his actions past or present, He should be included in Science.

Throughout human history literally thousands of deities known as "gods" -- many of them mutually exclusive -- have been worshipped and acknowledged as a cause of events. To which particular deity do you refer, and why should that one specific deity be included in science to the exclusion of all others?

Now admittedly He doesn't subject Himself to laboratory procedures prefering to deal in matters of man's heart.

This would suggest that the deity to which you refer is not objectively testable, which would make it outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. Emotional inferences are subjective, and not useful for science.

I think he does leave a considerable trail of evidence. But it's evidence of His choosing.

Please provide a means to test for this evidence.

[Bryan24]

"Science has repeatedly and scientifically proven that evolution has taken place. The incredible number of lab experiments that prove it .... it is just breath taking."

I must have missed science class the day we duplicated the 600,000,000 years it took man to evolve from the primordial soup.

[Dimensio]

The test for organized matter is intelligibility.

"Intelligibility" is a descriptor, not a test. Please explain the methods of this test.

The hypothetical falsification would be the disintegration of particle matter into chaos.

Why would this be a falsification criteria? Why does intelligent design imply that such an event would never occur?

Intelligent design may also be considered axiomatic, insofar as science can only explore what is intelligible.

You are assuming your conclusion. That is a logical fallacy. You are assuming that intelligent design is required for intelligible events that science can observe, but that is your intended conclusion. You cannot use your initial assumption to justify your conclusion.

You say scientific explanations are more than "inferences and assumptions," but science cannot take place without them as a foundation.

This does not mean that scientific explanations may be devoid of evidence. Scientific explanations also require the existence of language to convey them, however this does not mean that any statement in a language qualifies as a scientific explanation.

Years of scientific research back the idea of intelligent design, because all this time science has only been able to deal with what is intelligible.

You are again assuming your conclusion in asserting that intelligent design is responsible for that which is intelligible. You have not provided reason to support acceptance of this assertion.

[Dimensio]

I must have missed science class the day we duplicated the 600,000,000 years it took man to evolve from the primordial soup.

You are apparently unaware of the means by which scientific claims are evaluated. An entire event need not be duplicated in full to reasonably infer that the event occured.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You are assuming your conclusion.

That is what an axiom does.

[donh]

You know if you are right that the majority of scientists entertain some form of I.D., then maybe it's because they are seeing evidence that leads them to conclude that. And maybe they do us a disservice by not discussing that evidence. No doubt it's probably hard to quantify.

I told you what they see. If they saw significant, quantifiable evidence, it would be a science, as it is, it's idle speculation, and as such, does not deserve to be featured in the science curriculum in any manner that remotely suggests it's a serious scientific hypothesis, accepted by scientists as a viable alternative to Darwinian theory--which it is not, by the way. Even if it were true, it would be a minor detour in Darwinian theory. The evidence of sequential evolution is overwhelming, and would still need an explanation, even if we found "Kilroy(God) was here." etched in the junk DNA.

[Liberal Classic]

[donh]

I must have missed science class the day we duplicated the 600,000,000 years it took man to evolve from the primordial soup.

Must have been held on the same day we duplicated the drifting of the continents, the birth-to-death of a star, and the demonstration that the law of universal gravitation holds in the vacuum of intergalactic space.

Which sciences were you planning to leave in the curriculum? Astrology and alchemy?

[DannyTN]

"If the outside influence is outside of the fundamental properties of the universe, and thus not constrained by them, then this outside influence cannot be explained by science."

What are the fundamental properties of the Universe? If you don't study phenomenon with an open mind, then you may very well misunderstand fundamental properties.

"To which particular deity do you refer, and why should that one specific deity be included in science to the exclusion of all others?"

I don't say that a particular deity should be included. ID is not about which diety. ID is simply about looking at the evidence and concluding that the prevalent scientific explanation is a really poor fit at explaining the observable facts and that an influence (whether outside or inside) other than random mutations and copying errors must be responsible for the design of living creatures.

When we turn up science for which influence is real and which is not, then at that point which diety becomes science. I do, in fact, beleive that their is evidence that points to which diety. And that should be a scientific field of it's own, say the field of Diestic Science. But you aren't ready for that yet.

"Please provide a means to test for this evidence."

If you can't capture an influence/diety in a lab, then you study the way in interacts with observable evidence. If life forms appear suddenly in the fossil record without precursors that appears to be evidence of an intelligent influence of some sort beyond what science has defined as evolutionary factors.

To the extent that an influence/diety results interacts in ways other than creation of life form, study those interactions with the same scientific vigor that you would study anything else.

Two common interactions other than creation of life forms that are ascribed to one particular diety are eyewitness accounts of demonstrations of phenomenal power (miracles) and foreknowledge of human events (prophecy).

We know that there are recorded eyewitness events of demonstrations of phenomenal power (miracles). To the extent that these demonstrations can be studied, study them. A motor vehicle is going to look like a miracle to a first century man. Instantaneous healing of a man's ear also looks like a miracle, but maybe it's using technology we just don't have or understand yet.

Science should never exclude data points or observations that it can't explain. If it did, Science would never advance. Science only advances by developing explanations for data points that it previously couldn't explain.

"God did it" is not an adequate scientific explanation. But "This didn't just happen, something caused this, what?" and "What methods have been employed" and "How was this created" "How does this creation work" are all valid scientific questions.

[donh]

Science should never exclude data points or observations that it can't explain.

It shouldn't dote on them, either. It should generally just smile and nod, and move on to problems it can solve.

If it did, Science would never advance.

Science does just fine by constraining itself to looking at data it can do something with. Like predict things, for an apropos example. Unrepeatable miracles, especially those presumed to have happened millions of years ago, are not data points that generally fall into that bin.

[taxesareforever]

Are you saying that "evolution" is a lie? If so, please justify the claim.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50127

[taxesareforever]

And you cannot stick to a subject.

"You can't handle the truth."

[Dimensio]

The WorldNetDaily article to which you linked does not demonstrate that evolution is, as you claimed, a "lie".

[Dimensio]

That is what an axiom does.

Then your claim is not a scientific explanation, but rather an unsupportable assumption that you wish to inject into scientific inquiry without justification.

[Bryan24]

"You are apparently unaware of the means by which scientific claims are evaluated. An entire event need not be duplicated in full to reasonably infer that the event occured."

Hmm, 150 years or so since Darwin. 600,000,000 or so since the primordial soup. That's 1 sample out of 4000000.

That is what most people would reasonable infer is an insignificant sample size.