Is there a scientific case for an Intelligent Designer?

[Dak]

Science is not the system claiming that everything must have a cause.

 

Isn't it? are there causless effects? or, is it just not scientifically proven that all effects have causes?

[Mr Skeptic]

On that note, aren't some quantum effects considered Uncaused Causes? Eg radioactive decay. Though philosophically I'm completely against that idea as it seems to me to go against everything science stands for.

[Lan(r)12]

Im confused too...I thought science was the search for casual agents that had been previously unexplained? If science wasn't positing a cause for everything, then what does it do? And why have so many theories been developed to EXPLAIN aforementioned casual agents?

[swansont]

Isn't it? are there causless effects? or, is it just not scientifically proven that all effects have causes?

 

In the context of this discussion, about a scientific case for a designer, it doesn't matter. It is an ID claim that design must have a designer, because all things must have a cause. That's where the burden of proof is.

 

In general, there's decay, vacuum fluctuations, the big bang. The validity of the model does not depend on there being a cause.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Im confused too...I thought science was the search for casual agents that had been previously unexplained? If science wasn't positing a cause for everything, then what does it do? And why have so many theories been developed to EXPLAIN aforementioned casual agents?

 

Science is a search for models that explain how nature behaves.

[Mr Skeptic]

Science is a search for models that explain how nature behaves.

 

I disagree. Science is a search for models that predict how nature behaves. [/pedantic] The "God did it" model certainly explains a lot, but is not so hot on predictions. Though I suppose a scientist and layman mean different things when they say "explains".

[swansont]

I disagree. Science is a search for models that predict how nature behaves. [/pedantic] The "God did it" model certainly explains a lot, but is not so hot on predictions. Though I suppose a scientist and layman mean different things when they say "explains".

 

Yes, that's a good point. I meant "explain" in the broadest sense — both predicting and postdicting.

[john5746]

Though I suppose a scientist and layman mean different things when they say "explains".

 

Yes, because "God did it" explains nothing. Its the same as saying "Its too complicated"

[north]

NO

 

beacuse there is no difference between what Nature comes up with or an intelligent would , is there ?

 

mistakes

Edited April 22, 2009 by north

[Glider]

NO

 

beacuse there is no difference between what Nature comes up with or an intelligent would , is there ?

 

mistakes

This is not true. Nature doesn't make mistakes. Mistakes require planning and a goal to screw up. Evolution has no goal and involves no planning.

[JohnB]

A philosophical point.

 

While ID is flavour of the month with certain sections of the religious community, proof of a designer would not validate any religions beliefs about the purpose of the design.

 

Given the large number of religious variations, it is quite likely that even if they get the part about there being a designer right, they will not be accurate as to the attitudes and intentions of said designer.

 

The physical and scientific aspects of the question are quite separate from any religious aspects and should be viewed as two distinct areas.

[iNow]

And yet those who argue in support tend to think that debunking other theories proves their conjecture right. Case in point: So much time is spent trying to disprove evolution that they lose sight of the fact that no effort is being spent trying to support ID. Might it possibly be because they cannot? Interesting are the human psyche and societal mass distraction techniques.

[Sisyphus]

There are claims of support for ID, but they are mostly just god of the gaps stuff ("irreducible complexity," i.e. we haven't yet figured out how it works, therefore it must be miraculous and intentional) and misunderstanding of the Anthropic Principle.

[Mr Skeptic]

ID is essentially an argument from ignorance. Nothing wrong with that in itself, except that we are tremendously ignorant about biology so not knowing something isn't much of a surprise. Once we start designing our own life from scratch, we'll be in a position to make a fairly strong argument from ignorance -- or leave arguments from ignorance nothing to stand on.

[JohnB]

And yet those who argue in support tend to think that debunking other theories proves their conjecture right. Case in point: So much time is spent trying to disprove evolution that they lose sight of the fact that no effort is being spent trying to support ID.

Who are this "they" you speak of? Nobody here is saying that evolution is wrong.

 

I do realise that there are wackjobs out there, but that is the point, they are out there, not here. You are mentally setting yourself against arguments that are not being made here.

 

The question that started this thread was "Is there a scientific case for an Intelligent Designer?".

 

The question was not "Would the existance of a designer validate a particular religion?" nor was it "Would the existence of a designer prove creationism?"

 

There is nothing religious at all about the initial question, as it is a quite reasonable one.

 

Observed fact: The Universe exists.

 

There are only two possible states for the Universe to exist in, it either;

a) Has always existed. or,

b) Had a beginning.

 

If the Universe had a beginning there are again only two possible reasons for this beginning. either;

a) It happened by chance (or however you want to phrase it) or

b) It was designed to happen.

 

The question asked in this thread was if there was any scientific evidence for option b). Personal religious opinions don't come into it.

[Ophiolite]

I heartily applaud JohnB's points. The question is a valid one. It may be that it cannot be properly addressed at this time, in which case it cannot be investigated by science at present. That does not exclude it from future investigation.

 

The interesting possibility that either the universe, or life were the result of intelligent design has been hi-jacked by religious fundamentalists in such a way that mere mention of it generates dogmatic reactions from many scientists, or those of a scientific bent. That is unfortunate, since it is a self inflicted closure of a potentially interesting area of research.

 

I favour making a distinction - which I certainly do in my own mind - between Intelligent Design, which is a backdoor way of talking about creationism from the position of a fundamentalist, and intelligent design (lower case), which is the possible involvement of intelligent direction in some fashion in the development and possibly the creation of this particular universe. Such intelligence need not be omnipotent, omniscient, or especially interested in us.

 

Does such an intelligence exist? I have no idea, but I am irritated that creationists have made it difficult to even discuss the possibility.

[swansont]

Who are this "they" you speak of? Nobody here is saying that evolution is wrong.

 

I do realise that there are wackjobs out there, but that is the point, they are out there, not here. You are mentally setting yourself against arguments that are not being made here.

 

The question that started this thread was "Is there a scientific case for an Intelligent Designer?".

 

The question was not "Would the existance of a designer validate a particular religion?" nor was it "Would the existence of a designer prove creationism?"

 

There is nothing religious at all about the initial question, as it is a quite reasonable one.

 

Observed fact: The Universe exists.

 

There are only two possible states for the Universe to exist in, it either;

a) Has always existed. or,

b) Had a beginning.

 

If the Universe had a beginning there are again only two possible reasons for this beginning. either;

a) It happened by chance (or however you want to phrase it) or

b) It was designed to happen.

 

The question asked in this thread was if there was any scientific evidence for option b). Personal religious opinions don't come into it.

 

Thanks for articulating what I was meaning way back in post #5.

[iNow]

If the Universe had a beginning there are again only two possible reasons for this beginning. either;

a) It happened by chance (or however you want to phrase it) or

b) It was designed to happen.

I personally tend to disagree with the dichotomy you presented (or, at least, see room for additional options not shown in your list) and prefer to explore them using methods like those listed here instead of positing some fuzzy ill-defined designer role. YMMV.

[Severian]

Before you can identify intelligent design, you'll have to identify unintelligent design.

 

That is quite easy. Unintelligent design could be a universe in which it was impossible for life to form.

 

The argument for intelligent design is usually that, given our current understanding of the universe, there is vastly more parameter space for which life could not exist than for which life could exist.

 

Edit: Note I am using the phrase "intelligent design" to mean intentional design of the fundamental laws, not the anti-evolutionary crap which has been recently popular.

[Mr Skeptic]

That is quite easy. Unintelligent design could be a universe in which it was impossible for life to form.

 

How so? Maybe an advanced intelligence can create universes to use them as a power source and might actually prefer that life not form for moral reasons?

 

The argument for intelligent design is usually that, given our current understanding of the universe, there is vastly more parameter space for which life could not exist than for which life could exist.

 

Happy coincidence vs intent. Seems fair, but we do need some way to estimate how much of a coincidence.

[stereologist]

There is the old joke about a physics final:

 

Explain the history of our universe in detail. Give 3 counter examples.

 

I find many of ID concepts such as 'a tweak here or there and the universe doesn't work' lacking since there are no other examples to demonstrate the claim.

[Severian]

How so? Maybe an advanced intelligence can create universes to use them as a power source and might actually prefer that life not form for moral reasons?

 

For moral reasons? How anthropomorphic of you!

 

Happy coincidence vs intent. Seems fair, but we do need some way to estimate how much of a coincidence.

 

All sorts of measures have been proposed. In fact, such measures are often used in fundamental physics (I even have a paper on this myself). Not to justify intelligent design, but to allow preference for models which don't need to be fine tuned.

[Sisyphus]

For moral reasons? How anthropomorphic of you!

 

That doesn't really address the point. On what logical basis do you make the claim that a designer would choose to design a universe like ours?

[john5746]

I think if we agree that the Earth wasn't designed, that planets were not designed, that stars were not designed, that anything we have observed in the cosmos doesn't seem to have been designed, then I think we have quite a bit of evidence that the universe probably wasn't designed either.

[swansont]

That is quite easy. Unintelligent design could be a universe in which it was impossible for life to form.

 

The argument for intelligent design is usually that, given our current understanding of the universe, there is vastly more parameter space for which life could not exist than for which life could exist.

 

Edit: Note I am using the phrase "intelligent design" to mean intentional design of the fundamental laws, not the anti-evolutionary crap which has been recently popular.

 

But that's begging the question. This definition mandates that intelligent design exist. But within the context of some discussions, unintelligent design has already been conceded as existing.

 

And why is life existing a necessary result of intelligent design? That presupposes that life was the (or a) goal.

[Ophiolite]

And why is life existing a necessary result of intelligent design? That presupposes that life was the (or a) goal.

Why would you consider it to be a necessary result of intelligent design. I don't follow your logic there. That is only necessary if one is adopting the religious take on ID.