|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Perhaps the most universally accepted scientific truth in our day is that ‘the Earth revolves around the Sun,’ and this, rightfully so, is used as an example of an assertion that only a delusional maniac would dispute. The truth is that for millennia, people used their common sense and asserted that the Sun was moving because this is what they clearly observed. When observations of solar, lunar, and planetary motion are taken in total, however, the only theory that provides explanatory and predictive power is the heliocentric model of our solar system. Strictly speaking, we do not witness heliocentrism, but all the available observations are explained by this theory.
Intelligent-design creationism takes advantage of the inferential nature of scientific knowledge to fire the imaginations of those for whom purpose and intent must be recognized in all aspects of Nature. The scientific method, they say, must not be tied to any philosophical prejudices or be used to disqualify any conclusions that may point to intelligence or purpose in the Universe. However, there are many problems with what seems like IDC’s call for objectivity in scientific endeavor. Chief among these is that science is principally searching for the cause-and-effect mechanisms that do not depend on the intervention of intelligent agents. We would not be satisfied with the explanation that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius because an intelligent agent controls the process. Neither should we accept similar ad-hoc explanations for biological complexity simply to appease those for whom the notion of scientific objectivity conflicts with their religious beliefs. Methodological Naturalism (MN hereafter) is the only methodology that has produced results in the history of scientific endeavor. The assumption that mechanisms must be verifiable and testable is only seen as a prejudice by those whose understanding of philosophy and history is derived from creationist webpages. This assumption is only applicable to scientific research and has no bearing whatsoever on the question of religious faith. The assertion is often made that Newton, Pasteur and Einstein were all believers, and consequently that the revolutions in scientific thought that their research spurred were dependent on supernatural mechanisms. This is absolutely false. These believers conducted research that serves as a model for empirical evidential inquiry. They proposed natural mechanisms to explain natural phenomena, and made predictions based on their theories that were later borne out. Most significantly, they achieved their findings in a way comprehensible to, and repeatable by, other researchers regardless of their philosophical or religious backgrounds. Intelligent-design creationism does not propose a comprehensible mechanism, has never made testable predictions, and depends solely on its adherents’ wish to see purpose in Nature. The proponents of IDC are adamant that intelligent intervention is an inference drawn from the evidence, and that the knowledge of the identity of the intelligence is irrelevant to the inference. To support this, they claim that their methodology is no different from that used by SETI researchers or archaeologists. This puts them in a double-bind that doesn’t help their case one bit. Since we have independent knowledge of human sculptors and tool-makers, they say, the discovery of scupltures on Mars or tools in certain strata can be used to support the inference of intelligent agency. However, when the subject at hand is ancient microbiology and the sudden creation of species, we first need to have independent knowledge that intelligent agents have been responsible for these phenomena. By claiming that the identity of the designing intelligence is irrelevant (and admitting therefore that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of such an agent), they assume everyone takes for granted the possibility that intelligent agency is just as likely an explanation as natural processes for the design, billions of years ago, of the bacterial flagellum or proto-replicators. It’s worth noting that an archaeologist who claimed to have found a human artifact in billion-year-old strata would indeed lead us to the conclusion of design, namely fraud. The foundation of the IDC argument is the inadequacy of natural mechanisms to account for certain natural phenomena. Regardless of the inadequacy of arguments based on non-natural mechanisms, the basis of naturalism’s inadequacy is never explained. We are never told why natural, material mechanisms serve to explain (among many other things) the weather, heredity, and disease, but that there may be phenomena that are not accessible to naturalistic explanations. Without this understanding of the limitations of naturalism, we have no reason to assume that any natural phenomenon (whether its origin is understood or not) is by definition support for the existence of intelligent agency in Nature. Those who wish to see proof that the heliocentric model of our solar system is false need only look up and witness the Sun moving through the sky during the day. Similar common-sense arguments are put forward to support the inference of intelligent agency against what creationists see as the reigning scientific orthodoxy. Those who wish to make the inference are following a limited amount of observable evidence where they want it to lead. Intelligent design creationism is just such a selective, subjective methodology, and it speaks for itself. regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Couldn't have said it better myself. Another analogy that came to me the other day was the "Face" on Mars. Using the design inference, we would have to come to the conclusion that an intelligence put this structure on Mars. However, using a naturalistic viewpoint, the "Face" can be explained as combination of chance erosion and shadows that the human brain construes as a human face.
To this list, we could add numerous other natural features that look like human faces. And again, using the design inference, we should ignore natural mechanisms and claim that each of these "naturally occuring faces" was actually carved out by an intelligence. For the ID movement, the fact that design in nature can be ascribed to natural mechanisms is not important. What is important is upholding a religious position without regard to the actual practice of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6527 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Remindes me of my alphabet soup analogy.
My leters float around and form the word "Jesus". Did god put info into my soup, or did brownian motion, of the sort in a cup of tea, do it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is hard to look at living creatures and believe in Intelligent Design. There are simply so many instances and examples of sub-optimal and even really bad design, to give much credence to the idea of design, even of Stupid Design.
Attributing really poor designs to some GOD simply implies that GOD is truly incompetent or has the most marvelous and mischievous sense of humor imaginable. If he designed humans, as an example, he had to be chuckling when he skipped the padding on shins and elbows, inserted an appendix and added on a coccyx. I can just hear him telling Gabriel, What ‘till you see what I did to the latest model. BUT When we begin looking deeper, at both the design of the universe, the history of evolution as shown in the world around us, at the beauty that is DNA and the wonderful way things are able to change to meet new conditions or opportunities, I see order and design. Is it possible that there really is Intelligent Design, but that it is at the very finest level? Is it possible that the design was not of Humans, or Stars, or slime mold but at the very most basic building blocks? edited to fix spelling This message has been edited by jar, 05-21-2004 01:56 PM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Since the ID movement is nothing more than a philosophical stance, perhaps this is the direction they need to take. Claiming that the physical laws (quantum mechanics, relativity, chemistry, etc.) are a product of intelligent intervention has, in my opinion, as much validity as any other theory on first cause. Notice I say Intelligence, not diety. Given that there is a chance that some civilization was able to advance technology for a span of 10 million years, the ability to create a predefined universe may not be impossible. Not long ago I reread Greg Bear's novels Eon and Infinity (or is it Eternity, I can never remember). These books deal with manipulating both space and time, and how these technologies could lead to either the destruction of our own universe, or the creation of multiple universes. Great reads, by the way. However, the physical laws in effect today are enough to account for our reality, including the diversity of species and the presence of the heavenly bodies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
To paraphrase Arthur Clark "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from GOD."
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Another analogy that came to me the other day was the "Face" on Mars the huge resolution pictures in proper perspective are even less convincing, btw. here's one such picture: http://www.msss.com/...1/face/face_E03-00824_proc_50perc.gif (warning, VERY large, about 6mb) here's the bad astronomy page on it: Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions: Face to Face
anyhow. back on topic. id is a combination of this principle of seeing false order and that of an argument from ignorance. "i don't know how this could have happened" and "it didn't happen" are two very different arguments. the old finding a watch argument is the funniest, in my mind, because it actually predates darwins first publication. it turns out "the origin of species" was actually in answer to that very argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
John Paul responds to me in the "What is Science?" thread:
1) Designers can design each and every form of living organism which exists or has ever existed on Earth but leave no evidence of their own existence. And we're still wondering why this inference has to be made. Couldn't the mathematical consistency of the natural laws be an argument against an intervening intelligence? It seems that natural law is only fine for IDC'ers when they're praising the austere beauty of physics, but then they claim natural law and material processes are insufficient to explain life on Earth.
John Paul:The evidence of their existence is seen through the microscope, in the mathematical form the natural laws take and many more forms that are discussed in the book Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design. 2) Designers can produce designs that appear to be the products of billions of years of evolution, with telltale signs that they are related by descent to every other design (even those which are extinct) but are actually special creations. The fact is, we have clues as to the patterns of heredity among life forms on Earth. You're the one that says we shouldn't use them as evidence of evolution, or common descent. Or are you saying evolution is not based on material processes, but guided by an intelligence? It's hard to understand what you're saying when I'm trying to dodge the shit you're constantly flinging.
John Paul:You obviously have no clue what ID is. Ignorance is one thing. Wilfull ignorance is a shame. ID does NOT go against common descent. But you would know that if you had a clue. 3) Designers can produce designs that are redundantly, unnecessarily complex, but these designs should still be used to testify to the intelligence of these designers. What original designs? Whenever we find biological designs, we always notice that there are clues to previous design work, the telltale signs of the ongoing workings of the mutation-selection machine. We assert that all this design work is an ongoing process, and you need to offer some evidence that intelligent agency is even a plausible explanation for the billions of years of biological tinkering we see in these designs. The point is that designs that emanate from intelligent agency can be judged 'good' or 'bad,' and those that we see in Nature seem unlike anything we currently understand to be intelligently designed. John Paul:What we now observe is the result of mutations culled by NS on the original design(s). BTW if you or any other human can design life better please do so or consider youself incompotent or stupid. regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
First off: excellent post.
I submit there are three primary obstacles that prevent champions of IDC from backing down despite lack of supporting evidence and/or evidence contrary to IDC. 1. Ignorance2. Incredulity 3. Vanity Ignorance: One reason the overwhelming number of biologists in the world believe that evolution is factual is that they are extremely familiar with what the ToE does and does not explain. Without the proper knowledge, it is difficult to expect an individual to be able to understand WHY something is true; and not at all surprising to see the ingnorati challenge the factual basis of that which they do not understand - especially when it seems to contradict what they 'know' to be true based on what they have been taught by their parents, pastors, and friends. I am new to the boards yet I have seen this behavior demonstrated over and over again. How many times can a concept as simple as "The Big Bang theory is not the ToE" be explained over and over again to the same individuals to no avail? I can't count that high. One would expect, at some point, that the knowledge presented here would eventually eliminate a great deal of an individual's ignorance (it has for me); but then you run into another obstacle... Incredulity: In many aspects IDC is the classic case of the argument from incredulity. Because an individual can't conceive of something occured naturally, it must be true; which, of course goes hand in hand with ignorance. I observed Crashfrog (and others) try desperately to explain the law of truly large numbers to an individual who refused to acknowledge it's validity due to his own personal incredulity. The individual couldn't reconcile what is statistically possible, with what fit his personal definition of 'probability.' Vanity: To cap off the obstacle trinity you have vanity which serves to re-enforce incredulity and willfull ignorance. The idea of random, uncontrolled mutation not only challenges many individual's incredulity, but also their sense of purpose, and therefor, self worth. If there really is no great architect, then how does that affect what I've been told about my purpose and place in the world? I may have to embrace the fact that I am not special, i.e. not any different than any other organism, and that I have no particular purpose for existing - existence preceeds essence. I now look into the void of existentialism: a daunting and terrifying task for anyone who believes in a great architect. Finally, vanity prevents many individuals from conceding the inaccuracy of their beliefs, such as IDC, despite the evidence (or lack thereof). (see Concorde Fallacy -I can’t stop now, otherwise what I’ve invested so far will be lost). This message has been edited by custard to provide addtional links, 05-26-2004 06:22 PM This message has been edited by custard, 05-26-2004 06:27 PM This message has been edited by custard, 05-26-2004 06:32 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
and not at all surprising to see the ingnorati "Ignorati" - my new favorite word! Thank you, Custard, and welcome to EvC!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
It was clearly a miracle. Indeed, one of the strongest arguments for intelligent design is seen in the way that GOD uses miracles to implant designs he has previously used into other systems. His renderings of Jesus in the clouds, the virgin Mary on a building's side and of course Elvis on a tortilla chip are prime examples of the elegant workings of his great plan.
Why can't you people see???!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Thanks. That is one of the best posts I have yet come across. It may take me days to get the coffee out of my keyboard and the dogs took my laughing fit as the perfect opportunity to snatch the Bannana Nut muffin I had heated for breakfast.
Too funny. Again, thanks. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But what about the fact that most life hasn't been able to change to meet new conditions or opportunities, and has become extinct? Do you see the Divine in that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If you are asking if I believe that there is some hand in the mix saying this shall live and this shall pass away, then the answer is an emphatic NO.
What I see if the Divine Hand setting out the underlying rules of order that we are gradually learning, mayhaps even being the initial push that changed the status of what was and starting the Big Bang. All else, the species that survived and those that became extinct are the results of those rules. The rules include those biological building blocks as well as the ones that govern physics, mathmatics and all other sciences. The truly wonderful thing to me is that the basic instruction set included a method that allowed individuals, even whole species to change. While some became extict, life went on. Despite some of the greatest calamities imaginable, drifting contents, strikes by massive asteroids, changing climates and everything else that has happened, life has been able to evolve to meet every challenge. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024