Intelligent design anyone?

[daisy]

Just curious as to whether there are any subscribers to the intelligent design stance? Personally I think it's a bit like creationism in disguise and also smacks of sitting on the fence. Me, I support evolution. But of course I could be wrong and maybe we are all just a giant experiment in somebody/thing's petri-dish.

[blike]

If anyone takes the time to read some serious books on it, they make good points. I've read Behe's book on it (is it behe, jehe, lehe?). He made a great case for design, however it all hinges on the definition of design and is design something that science can prove or disprove.

 

I don't think design isn't necessarily creationism in disguise, as most IDT proponents will tell you knowing something is designed does not tell you much about who designed it or how.

 

This line is a thin line to walk however, because those that tip-toe it are close to trampling all the science thats been laid down rather painstakingly behind evolution.

 

I find it all quite fascinating though.

[blike]

I'll post some of his thoughts in this thread tomorrow morning, don't have loads of time right now.

[Skye]

I think there's only one way to disprove such an anthropomorphic theory...:flame:

[Guest buckminster]

Originally posted by blike

If anyone takes the time to read some serious books on it, they make good points. I've read Behe's book on it (is it behe, jehe, lehe?). He made a great case for design, however it all hinges on the definition of design and is design something that science can prove or disprove.

 

I don't think design isn't necessarily creationism in disguise, as most IDT proponents will tell you knowing something is designed does not tell you much about who designed it or how.

 

This line is a thin line to walk however, because those that tip-toe it are close to trampling all the science thats been laid down rather painstakingly behind evolution.

 

I find it all quite fascinating though.

 

You know what I find quite fascinating?

 

Why people try to disguise religious dogma as open minded, scientific thought!

 

Come on, how can the ID advocates possibly infer that this anthropomorphic being exists from the simple fact that we are just beginning to understand how totally amazing and complex our universe really is? They never heard of Occam's Razor, huh?

 

Do you have the slightest idea how science works?

 

It's obvious you don't, or why else could you be so naive in stating that ID is "trampling on all the science" regarding the topic of evolution.

 

Geez, dude, do you have any idea how insulting it is to people's intelligence when you pretend ID is anything other than just a different tactic for those folks wanting to pursue their religious inspired agenda against science?

 

best regards,

 

buck

[blike]

Originally posted by buckminster

Do you have the slightest idea how science works?

 

It's obvious you don't, or why else could you be so naive in stating that ID is "trampling on all the science" regarding the topic of evolution.

 

Whoah, chill. You're misinterpreting what I said. Re-read what I said. "This line is a thin line to walk however, because those that tip-toe it are close to trampling all the science thats been laid down rather painstakingly behind evolution."

 

Did anyone else misunderstand? By trampling I didn't mean "disproving", I meant disregarding what many scientists have dedicated their lives to uncovering.

[Dudde]

right...reading is the key here;)

and it's a good point...

[Sayonara]

Blike has a nice hat.

[daisy]

I've got a better one - or I had until my husband fell on it and squashed it.

[Dudde]

hmm....I used to have a hat kinda like that...I dunno what happened to it..

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by blike

This line is a thin line to walk however, because those that tip-toe it are close to trampling all the science thats been laid down rather painstakingly behind evolution.

 

one of the things I have never seen a IDT proponent, or any other "religious scientist" do is submit his ideas to peer review. In refusing to do this, they attempt to use science as a weapon against itsef, while simultaneously ignoring one of the most fundamental tenets.

[blike]

I'd like to discuss this further. What, to you (anyone), would indicate a biological system being designed?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by blike

I'd like to discuss this further. What, to you (anyone), would indicate a biological system being designed?

 

something along the lines of a series of interconnected objects that are energetically unfavourable.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by blike

I'd like to discuss this further. What, to you (anyone), would indicate a biological system being designed?

 

A designer label, like Calvin Klein's. That's right, I will not be convinced of Intelligent Design until I see untampered-with newborn babies with "God" stamped on their asses.

 

OK, seriously now. The thing that would convince me is not seeing the craftwork, but having some other evidence of the craftsman. People who propose that some "super intelligence" created everything are operating under the assumption that a "super mind" exists, and this assumption has no basis in reality.

 

How do you know that any mind other than your own exists? You know because of observing certain behaviors in other bodies. When you are sad, you cry. When others are subject to conditions that would make you sad, and you observe them cry, then you infer that they are sad. The inference goes from:

 

(my mental states)-->(my behavior)-->(others' behavior)-->(others' mental states)

 

The last step is the inductive leap, as you do not have access to the mental states of others. So, to propose a mind in the absence of any behavioral observations is to propose 'god', which makes ID just another name for "Creation Science", which is a true contradiction in terms.

 

"Thumbs down", I say.

 

Tom

[blike]

So then it can never be scientifically determined whether any object was designed or not...be it a car or a rock..

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by blike

So then it can never be scientifically determined whether any object was designed or not...be it a car or a rock..

 

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that, in order for me to be convinced that something has been designed, I would need some evidence for the designer other than the thing in question. I can determine that a car was designed by meeting the designer, who presumably documented his work. I can visit the production plant and observe how human hands were involved in each step of the process.

 

Tom

[MiguelBladesman]

Daisy:

 

I do subscribe to the Intelligent Design idea; but I want to clarify that; but though I clarify it somewhat, I would like for you and others to go ahead and challenge me, because my best guess is that I have a mix of scientific (empirical) and religion/mythos thinking in place.

 

Okay, here goes.

 

My general approach, being a man who believes in what we call "God" is that the complex and beautiful phenomenology such as DNA, the systems of Galaxies, and all of that, don't serve as good 'evidence' for an underlying "Intelligence". (I usually toss in that this Intelligence is also "benevolent" in IT's intelligent purpose for us, and therefore seperates itself from Science, because Science, de facto, has no Teleolgical determinations.)

 

The issue is very complex, owing to people on both sides of the Evolutionary Theory issue, confusing the notion of Divinity with its various religious writings, forming some type of antithetical dichotomy. I want to dray your attention to that issue specifically. The two notions are not specifically, antithetical systems of thought. In fact, the notion of Evolution of man, contrasted with the Genesis account of "creation" can even be seen as tangential; but even speculating that, I still wish to return to my original idea with a strong emphasis upon the idea that the clear patterns in evolution do not serve as 'evidence' for intelligence.

 

I root my belief in the Intelligent Designer in Faith itself, in "mythos"; therefore, I do not require "proof" in any context at all. This may be very confusing, but I do not require "evidence" for a "faith". In fact, my faith is determined not by what I observe outwardly in the world of phenomenology, but rather what I observe within myself. What is within myself is private, revelatory, and you cannot alter my private and freely chosen assumption.

 

[There's probably a lot to sort out here, but if you would offer any kind of critique at all, I would appreciate that. Thanks].

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by MiguelBladesman

 

where does your intelligent design fit into all of this?

[MiguelBladesman]

Originally posted by buckminster

 

You know what I find quite fascinating?

 

Why people try to disguise religious dogma as open minded, scientific thought!

 

Come on, how can the ID advocates possibly infer that this anthropomorphic being exists from the simple fact that we are just beginning to understand how totally amazing and complex our universe really is? They never heard of Occam's Razor, huh?

 

Do you have the slightest idea how science works?

 

It's obvious you don't, or why else could you be so naive in stating that ID is "trampling on all the science" regarding the topic of evolution.

 

Geez, dude, do you have any idea how insulting it is to people's intelligence when you pretend ID is anything other than just a different tactic for those folks wanting to pursue their religious inspired agenda against science?

 

best regards,

 

buck

 

 

BUCK:

 

I realize you were addressing someone particular, so I wish to couch my remarks in a general sense, because I take issue with the contrasts you draw, which basically involves the Religion vs Science debate, and I want to point out that Religion does not necessarily imply contradiction or conflict with Science.

 

Obviously, there's lots of politicking going on, from the "Creationists" etc, but from the purely philosophical side, there is not really an antithesis between the two approaches to knowledge (relgion/science).

 

If we rigidly draw continual contrasts between what we call "religious dogma" and Science, we create an oversimplification and also a reductionist interpretation of religion, which ill serves science. The point here is, religion and dogma are not necessarily synonymous. If you do not commit the ideological error of painting religionists into a dogmatic corner, then religion becomes the ally of science.

[MiguelBladesman]

Originally posted by blike

I'd like to discuss this further. What, to you (anyone), would indicate a biological system being designed?

 

Blike:

 

I'd be guilty of entirely defaulting your question if I didn't answer that DNA clearly suggests "design". The pattern is four-square.

 

BUT!!!...I hardly consider any pattern in nature as "proof" of Intelligent design. ID can be derived best, only from an inner, revelatory, and intuitional experience . The distinction best drawn in the fields of human knowledge is that between the philosophical Public, and the philosophical Private. These manifest as the Objective and the Subjective.

 

There's isn't much common between the two. The frames of reference and scope are different, which, if I am not mistaken Blike, you already have determined.

[MiguelBladesman]

Originally posted by Tom

 

A designer label, like Calvin Klein's. That's right, I will not be convinced of Intelligent Design until I see untampered-with newborn babies with "God" stamped on their asses.

 

OK, seriously now. The thing that would convince me is not seeing the craftwork, but having some other evidence of the craftsman. People who propose that some "super intelligence" created everything are operating under the assumption that a "super mind" exists, and this assumption has no basis in reality.

 

How do you know that any mind other than your own exists? You know because of observing certain behaviors in other bodies. When you are sad, you cry. When others are subject to conditions that would make you sad, and you observe them cry, then you infer that they are sad. The inference goes from:

 

(my mental states)-->(my behavior)-->(others' behavior)-->(others' mental states)

 

The last step is the inductive leap, as you do not have access to the mental states of others. So, to propose a mind in the absence of any behavioral observations is to propose 'god', which makes ID just another name for "Creation Science", which is a true contradiction in terms.

 

"Thumbs down", I say.

 

Tom

 

"...no basis in reality"

 

Tom, that's a wrongful inference on your part. The implication you present is a bit of a double blind, with an inference that REALITY is a known factor, and has been defined and proscribed with specificity. Science, for example, has never made a determination as to what REALITY is. Religion, at best, only operates with a primary assumption based on "mythos".

 

OR......would you have me to accept that Religion and Science both operate with the identical fundamental assumption? Obviously, they don't. If you wish that I make it obvious, I'll serve that up. However, your skepticism is appreciated and warranted generally, as a necessary part of human endeavour.

[Radical Edward]

so basically you think there is intelligent design because that is what you think, and there is no more to it than that? If so, then it isn't at all debatable since you don't believe in empiricism.

[MiguelBladesman]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

so basically you think there is intelligent design because that is what you think, and there is no more to it than that? If so, then it isn't at all debatable since you don't believe in empiricism.

 

Radical Edward:

 

Firstly, it isn't, de facto, necessary to "debate" everything. Debate clarifies possibilities. Agreement on necessary assumptions suited for specific purpose is far more effective.

 

What I "think" falls within the paramaters of PRIVATE experience, rather than PUBLIC, which is the realm of science. Can you disentitle the individual from private experience? That would conflict with Constitutional guarantees in law.

 

The latter point serves well, for it establishes that there are specific boundaries in human endeavour, where scope and purpose are key considerations.

 

["...because you don't believe in empiricism." -Radical Edward ]

 

Empiricism is something I do believe in. However, all human experience is not empirical. For anyone to say so, is unwise. Empiricism has its scope, but one perennial is that science does not reveal "truth", and private experience does.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by MiguelBladesman

 

Whut?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by MiguelBladesman

 

"...no basis in reality"

 

Tom, that's a wrongful inference on your part.

 

OK, change it to "no basis in the picture of reality that is painted by our observations".

 

The implication you present is a bit of a double blind, with an inference that REALITY is a known factor, and has been defined and proscribed with specificity.

 

No, my position is really the opposite: That reality cannot be prescribed by some a priori argument. All we know of reality is through our observations, and a brainless, disembodied super intelligence is not compatible with any of them, and that is my point. There is no reason to believe that such a thing exists.