Intelligent design stirrings

Washington Times ^

[rob777]

It is basically saying that something has the appearance of design it cannot possibly have arisen from natural processes.






Actually, it is saying that the appearance of design is far more likely to have been a result of design than by random processes(I will not go into here the argument over what constitutes a "natural" process). Anything is possible, but some things are more probable. This is the same argument that Aristotle made against a theory similar to random evolution held by certain Pre-Socratics.

[NJ_gent]

""unintelligent design" is no more provable than "intelligent design" and is NOT the scientific position."

Natural Selection, Speciation, Mutation, divergence, and convergence have all been observed in nature and in the lab. We simply have not existed on this Earth long enough to see the dramatic results of evolutionary processes as desired by creationists/IDers. What we have to go on is a fossil record that's been battered by eons of weathering and microbes.

""random" in science terms says nothing about cause. It is a term that indicates the limit of measurement, knowledge or theory. For example, the randomness of a throw of a pair of dice is due to inability to know all the pertinent initial conditions. Similarly the randomness in evolutionary theory is due to a complete inability to know or take account of all the conditions which cause a species to become extinct or which cause a mutation."

I don't think you're completely off base with this, but we do indeed know a great deal about mutations and extinctions. The conditions which cause mutations would be within the areas of study of biochemistry and physics. There is nothing magical about DNA or RNA; both are simply collections of subatomic particles behaving according to the laws of physics. While there is extreme complexity in describing mutation from the subatomic level, the only real uncertainty is that given to us by Heisenberg (and even that can be reduced significantly).

"There are ways to determine whether something is "designed." The hypothesis says that there are mathematic ways to measure complexity (similar to the measurement of entropy) and that this measure indicates a deviation from"randomness." The tests need to be involve observable phenomena which are known to be "designed" or "not designed." Once the mathematics is verified then it could be legitimately applied to natural observation."

Statistical analysis of an open system is incredibly complex and difficult at best. At worst, it's snake oil.

"Science can only describe "how" things work, it can never describe "why.""

I have never said anything different. Science describes the what, when, where, and how of the world around us. Why is the domain of religion and belief. It is when science attempts to answer questions in religion's domain, or vice versa, that problems occur. Neither does a good job of intruding upon the other's domain. The moment science attempts to address the human soul, it is no longer science.

"The limitation of science is that it restricts itself (rightly) to phenomena which can be observed and measured. It is a mistake to believe that this represents the entirety of truth."

Science is capable of discovering the truth for all that is observable and measurable. Beyond that lies metaphysics and religious belief. As I said above, it is when one tries to enter the domain of the other that problems occur. Religion cannot explain the 'how' of the changing of the seasons any more than science can explain the 'why' of human existence. Those who have tried (Greeks for the former, Scientology for the latter) have come up with nothing more than ridiculous fairy tales.

[js1138]

But of course the appearance of design was the very thing that Darwin and Wallace set out to explain. ID is not exactly a new idea.

In the two hundred years since ID was first published in its modern form, the argument has contributed exactly nothing to Biology. Science is not so much about being right or wrong as it is about generation useful and productive hypotheses that suggest research.

[NJ_gent]

"once you assume a supernatural cause, you have ended curiosity."

Nothing is so dangerous to the scientific advancement of a culture than this. It is human curiosity and the drive to understand that has propelled us so far beyond any other animal on the face of the Earth.

[Matchett-PI]

"...it depends on one's definition of "evolution"..."

Exactly. And if you read through my posts, you will see that I demand that people define their terms. There are a million interpretations of the term "evolution", and "science".

And is it any wonder? When you have respected and credentialed "scientists" like Dawkins, and his fellow-traveler gad-fly Scientism evangelist, Carl Sagan out there running around equating the religion of atheism with the hard sciences, and having people who aren't even credentialed "scientists" - but instead are promoters of websites like internetinfidels.org, and other secular humanist websites, speaking at their conventions and running their PR campaigns??? For instance, THIS is laughable:

These are serious "scientists"???? LOL:

[1] Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project". Circulates Online by James Still @ Infidels.org

The so-called "scientific" qualifications of James Still:

James Still B.A., Philosophy, University of Minnesota - "...helped to build and maintain the Secular Web. ... President of the Internet Infidels from 2000 until 2002. ..Compulsively and deterministically dwells on philosophical problems and issues, ..epistemology, religion......an avid yoga practitioner ... reads widely in Eastern mysticism" , etc., etc., @ Infidels.org

[2] "The Wedge at Work": How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream by Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. @ Infidels.org

The so-called "scientific" qualifications of Barbara Forrest:

Barbara Carroll Forrest - B.A., English, Southeastern Louisiana University, 1974 - M.A., Philosophy, Louisiana State University, 1978 - Ph.D., Philosophy, Tulane University, 1988

Teaching positions:

Professor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University, 2002 - Present
Associate Professor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University, 1994-2002
Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University, 1989-1994
Full-time Instructor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University, 1988-1989
Part-time Instructor in Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University, 1981-1988

Among her awards: "Friend of Darwin" Award, National Center for Science Education, March 1998

Conference Presentations [excerpts]:

"A Critical Philosophical Analysis of the Moral Distinction Between Active and Passive Euthanasia," Mid-South Sociological Association, Jackson, MS, November, 1978.

"Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection," and "The Possibility of Meaning in Human Evolution," Science and Society Conference. Russian Academy of Sciences; Institute of the History of Natural Sciences and Technology; Faculty of Philosophy, St. Petersburg State University. St Petersburg, Russia, June 19-25, 1999.

"Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection," at Science and God: A Naturalistic Examination of Cosmology, the Anthropic Principle, and Design Theories. Society of Humanist Philosophers, Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, September 25-26, 1999.

Lectures/Presentations [excerpts]:

"Creation and Evolution: A Philosophical View of the Concept of Balanced Treatment." Public forum: "Evolution and Creationism in Louisiana Public Schools," SLU, March 31, 1981.

"The Influence of Darwin on 19th- and 20th-Century Culture," Dept. of Biological Sciences, Southeastern Louisiana University, April 21, 1995. ...

Journal Articles [excerpt]: "An Analysis of the Causal Interpretation of Karl Marx's Theory of History," Lamar Journal of the Humanities, Spring 1989.

...Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection," Philo, Fall-Winter 2000.

"The Possibility of Meaning in Human Evolution," Zygon, December 2000.

Etc., etc., @ Infidels.org

I suggest that serious scientists distance themselves from all the people (such as those named above) who are promoted by web sites like infidels.org, AmericanHumanist.org.

[js1138]

Well we are dealing with a cult version of a religion that has tried to define curiosity as a sin.

[Kokojmudd]

"Who are we? Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist? How were we created? Who or what created us. And who created the creator?"



Wait a cotton pickin minute. We are grown up germs, sitting on the cog of one wheel of a vast cosmic machine, that is destined ultimately to blow itself up. Our origin is, as a grown up germ.... we come from meaninglessness.... from nothingness,... and our ultimate destiny is annihilation.

[sumocide]

I've come to believe teachers should just do that. They should take ID and contrast it with science point by point. I bet after a short time the ID proponents will demand this practice be stopped because it "disrespects their beliefs".

[RightWhale]

ID won't go anywhere since it is not a method suitable for philosophy. It might apply to the creation of the Constitution, though, since that is a deliberate act at least in part.

[rob777]

I suggest that serious scientists distance themselves from all the people (such as those named above) who are promoted by web sites like infidels.org, AmericanHumanist.org.





If this was to happen, then a lot of the controversy would go away. I do not believe that serious ID theorists have a problem with those evolutionists who do not insist that evolution is a completely random process. This is a metaphysical assumption every bit as much as the assumption of a designer. Personally, I have no problem with such assumptions, although I do consider the assumption of a designer to be more rational. Science as we know it started with the assumption that the universe is orderly and its laws could be discovered by human reason. That is a metaphysical assumption. The word science itself comes from the Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know. It had broader connotations than the narrow one we give it today. I tend to be a partial to the classical approach and have no problem with using metaphysical assumptions as the basis for scientific inquiry. (As long as dogmatism does not cause one to force the evidence to fit the assumption)

[Matchett-PI]

I agree. bttt

[little jeremiah]

later read/pingout.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

[NJ_gent]

>"RD: When you look at the galaxies, what do you feel?"
"Cold. I then wonder who stole my tent."

Angry. Maybe that new roof was a tad too cheap after all...

[js1138]

Wait a cotton pickin minute. We are grown up germs, sitting on the cog of one wheel of a vast cosmic machine, that is destined ultimately to blow itself up.

That is the kind of interpretation that arises in people having a philosophical or theological temperament.

That kind of thinking is really alien to science. Scientists are too busy solving solvable puzzles to spend much time worrying about philosophy.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Our secular popular culture is throwing a fit over President Bush's endorsement of teaching in public schools the controversies surrounding Darwinian theory.

This is a disingenuous comment for two reasons. The first is that "secular popular culture" isn't throwing a fit. I have yet to see anything on MTV that even acknowledges that this happened. "Secular popular culture" ignores the President entirely unless they want to make fun of him. It's faith-based and other scientists who are upset.

The second is that scientific controversies are already taught where evolution is included in the curriculum. It's religious objections that he's trying to include.

[Kokojmudd]

"We are grown up germs, sitting on the cog of one wheel of a vast cosmic machine, that is destined ultimately to blow itself up."


This interpretation is the essence of humanism.

[js1138]

Humanism, whatever. Science doesn't waste time on unsolvable verbal conundrums.

[cornelis]

Science doesn't waste time on unsolvable verbal conundrums.

But politics does. And scientists are not exempt. Scientism--exclusive insistence that only your scientific problems are real--is unacceptable in an enlightened era.

One of the verbal conundrums is the definition of evolution. Matchett-PI and rob777 have pointed this out. Thanks to them. In the various definitions of evolution and adherence to scientific thinking, we easliy find the mixture of philosophical scientism and scientific inquiry. This mixture allows contestants to castle their arguments whenever convenient. This morning NRO put up a piece by Peter Wood. There is evolution and there is Evolution. About your general approach: we can easily recognize that the domain of science is only theoratically isolated. The principles and procedures are a matter of choice. Science as a field of knowledge bumps up against the rest of reality, including religion, philosophy, and (not-to-forget) politics. So, go easy on the philosophers et. al. Science also has unsolvable problems.

[Kokojmudd]

"Humanism, whatever. Science doesn't waste time on unsolvable verbal conundrums."

I replied with sarcasm to a post about "life's meaning." Maybe you don't waste time with unsolvable verbal conundrums but few can deny humanism's influence in the scientific community over the last 100 years or so.