Not-So-Intelligent Design

The Scientist ^ | Mar. 4, 2002 | Neil S. Greenspan and Anthony Canamucio

[ksen]

In other words, were do you think the BB[Big Bang] was located?

Why it took place in that little room right off the Oval Office.
.
.
.
Wait a minute, this is a CR-EVO thread?.......Oops, never mind, carry on.

-ksen

[Sabertooth]

Of course, you're right in some sense: one cannot disprove intelligent design because one can always speculate that something has been designed.
Take a rock for example: it could have formed naturally over millions of years or in a volcanic eruption and have been exposed to erosion or an intelligent designer who is able to manipulate matter on the atomic level created it. One can't even rule out the fact that our universe has been created last Tuesday by an omnipotent deity.
Such hypothesis can be neither confirmed nor completely ruled out and therefore they're not scientific.

Agreed, see my post at #46. We see eye to eye here.

But even if we discover Laws of Biology, as we have Laws of Physics and Chemistry, we will forever beg the question (scientifically, anyway) of how and why those laws came to be...

And the same was true for lightning up until some two hundred years ago. People begged the question of how and why lightnings happend. They invented deities like Thor or Zeus and numerous others who were thought to cause this phenomenon. Were they right? I don't know but today we have a naturalistic explanation for this phenomenon so we don't need these deities anymore.

Today it isn't lightning we're preoccupied with but more complex issues like the ones you named above. Of course we can ascribe them to some god but this "explanation" may be too discarded if a naturalistic explanation is available. Therefore I tend to say that I don't know rather than to assert that it must be the work of a deity. So there's absolutely no problem with saying that "science hasn't found out yet" but we can't state with absolute certainty that science will never answer a certain issue.

I think we can state with a fair amount of certainty that science will never be able to tell us what caused the Big Bang, or why the Laws governing the Universe are as they are, and not something else... For the precise reason that those questions require answers that go beyond space and time in their scope.

These are questions that science wasn't meant to answer, although each of us has the prerogative to utilize science to try and glean our best understanding of such matters.

The problem I see with supernaturalistic explanations is that one cannot determine whether there is no naturalistic explanation left so there is only the option to evoke the supernatural or whether there exists a naturalistic explanation but we haven't looked hard enough.

When it come to first causes, that is, "What causes nature?" the supernatural is a deus ex machina and "natural causes" is a tautology.

Neither has an advantage ofer the other, from the standpoint of science.

Please note, I'm not saying "Evolution is a tautology."

[Sabertooth]

But truth is, many of the great Western scientists of the last five centuries were religious Christians (therefore creationists), some extremely devout.

True, but they were scientists at a time when there wasn't an awareness of scientific evidence that might come into conflict with their devotion, or at least their interpretation of it.

I was speaking more in terms of contemporary Creationists, as defined in my post at #46:

"But I think a better definition of Creationist would be anyone who believes in Special Creation of species, regardless of time frame. That's neither provable nor disprovable, scientifically. "

[Askel5]

First, complexity is problematic to define, and irreducible complexity more so.

Gee whiz ... trust no one whittles away anymore of this dude's paper-thin "collective intelligence".

[ksen]

There are no examples of something designed vs something not designed for comparison. If everything is designed, the theory is vacuous.

There are no examples of something evolved vs something not evolved for comparison. If everything is evolved, the theory is vacuous.

-ksen

[Doctor Stochastic]

One can test if something happens "randomly." One cannot test design. One can look for things like critical exponents to see if one is in a random regime. This is done regularly by experimenters. There is no criteria (under the Design Hypothesis) to say something isn't designed.

[Windshark]

Dang...I thought this thread was about Democrats...

Musta been the title.

[BMCDA]

I think we can state with a fair amount of certainty that science will never be able to tell us what caused the Big Bang, or why the Laws governing the Universe are as they are, and not something else... For the precise reason that those questions require answers that go beyond space and time in their scope.

I admit that's very unlikely (at least from our present point of view) and that's why I withhold any speculation concerning this issue. If there is no way to obtain any empirical evidence that backs up such speculations I don't see their merit. Therefore one speculation is as good as any other to avoid admitting that one simply does not know. (Of course there are people who admit that those are only speculations but there are others who claim they are the Truth because they "just know" it to be so)

[Sabertooth]

One can test if something happens "randomly." One cannot test design. One can look for things like critical exponents to see if one is in a random regime. This is done regularly by experimenters. There is no criteria (under the Design Hypothesis) to say something isn't designed.

Think about it... something is either random or designed... if you can't test for one, you really can't test for the other.

If you could prove "not random," then you could prove design by elimination.

[gcruse]

Another intellectual nugget from a secular extremist.

  Glad you enjoyed it.

Why don't you try learning a little bit about the real contributions made by
religion to mankind.

  The cargo cult may have contributed something
   to the Polynesians, too, for all I know.  But I wouldn't
   bet it brought them modernity, and clinging  to it in
   the face of reality is a waste of humanity.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I think that scientists just keep trying to solve harder and harder problems, until they get to the one that's too hard. In Einstein's case, he spent lots of time trying to find a good unified field theory. He didn't get one, but other people haven't yet either. (Maybe soon.)

Of course, Einstein's problems with QM were primarily philosophical. He didn't like philosophical consequences. Of course, he never disagreed that QM gave the right answers, he just thought it incomplete. From today's perspective, it seems that QM will always be incomplete, using Einstein's version of completeness.

[Doctor Stochastic]

No one states the everything is evolved.

[ksen]

There is no criteria (under the Design Hypothesis) to say something isn't designed.

Really? So what exactly is the criteria in Evolutionary Theory that would say that something is not evolved?

-ksen

[Doctor Stochastic]

False dichotomy. There are other things than random or design, chaos for example.

[Sabertooth]

If there is no way to obtain any empirical evidence that backs up such speculations I don't see their merit.

There's more to life than science. How would you prove "love," scientifically?

Yet, there's something to be said for it.

Therefore one speculation is as good as any other to avoid admitting that one simply does not know.

Is all knowledge scientific?

Should a truth be ignored, simply because it might elude the grasp of science?

[Doctor Stochastic]

So what exactly is the criteria in Evolutionary Theory that would say that something is not evolved?

Lack of a cladistic structure at either the genotypic or phenotypic level. One only needs a synchronic snapshot so current creatures are sufficient.

[ksen]

No one states the everything is evolved.

They don't? Can you give me an example of something that hasn't evolved? If it/they are not evolved and weren't designed, then how did it/they get here?

-ksen

[Sabertooth]

There are other things than random or design, chaos for example.

Which "chaos" are we talking about?

[Aric2000]

Which Chaos are we talking about.

The Chaos on this thread for one? I feel like a fricking ping pong bal and you're the net!! LOL

[ksen]

Lack of a cladistic structure at either the genotypic or phenotypic level. One only needs a synchronic snapshot so current creatures are sufficient.

Aaww, you're just saying that because you knew that I wouldn't know what in the world you were talking about. ;^)

-ksen