SimonFunnell Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Hi, I have looked at intelligent design and I am bit puzzled. I mean, I hear scientists say it is 'religion cloaked in scientific language' and shouldn't be taught in our schools but after looking at it I really don't see any religion in it whatsoever? Consequently, could a someone who is against intelligent design being taught in our schools clearly explain intelligent design and why it is 'religion cloaked in scientific language' to me please? I would like to see what I must be getting wrong, thanks!
ajb Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 If something is designed, then who or what designed it? The answer to that question is the key link with religion - but not nessisarily Christianity.
SimonFunnell Posted July 24, 2016 Author Posted July 24, 2016 Thanks for the answer! The problem is, I don't really understand. Could you briefly explain to me your understanding of intelligent design please? I am assuming that you, like me, have looked at it and understood it?
Strange Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Thanks for the answer! The problem is, I don't really understand. Could you briefly explain to me your understanding of intelligent design please? I am assuming that you, like me, have looked at it and understood it? Perhaps you could explain why you think that the ID proponents do not require a Designer (and/or why that Designer is not their God). The connection is pretty bloody obvious. And it is the same people involved in Creationism as ID. It is just white-washing that is intended, I believe, to get round the USA's separation of church and state.
ajb Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Could you briefly explain to me your understanding of intelligent design please? Basically - God did it. 1
swansont Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 One of the bits of literature presented in the Kitzmiller ID trial a few years ago had a copy-paste error that made it clear that the textbook had been modified from text on creationism, by replacing certain terms. "cdesign proponentsists" http://rationalwioi.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists
EdEarl Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 The youtube video below (1 hr 50 mins) is a PBS NOVA documentary about Intelligent Design On Trial. During that trial, a book about Intelligent Design (ID) was part of the evidence. Defense researchers subpoenaed publisher records and found a previous version of the book, where a definition of ID had previously been the definition of Creation Science. Moreover, the date of the change was one day following the 1968 United States Supreme Court ruling that teaching Creation Science violated separation of church and state. Since the two definitions were the same, the lower court ruled teaching ID also violated separation of church and state.
SimonFunnell Posted July 24, 2016 Author Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) I mean, as I understand the basic logic, if you boil it down to its essential idea, it is basically three questions: 1 - How much creative power do natural process have to create complex things. 2 - What are the limits of this creative power (i.e. what is the maximum level of complexity this creative power can give rise to). 3 - Does the complexity of the most simple cell cross this limit. There is of course no religion in that, they are perfectly valid questions. Now if the answer to number 3 is 'yes' then the most simple cell is not the result of natural processes (which, as I understand it, is what evolutionists believe), meaning it must be the result of something else. At this point, if the answer to question 3 is 'yes' then its not unreasonable to think it might be the result of an intelligent agent. That is all that is said about an intelligent agent. Where is the religion in that? Edited July 24, 2016 by SimonFunnell
ajb Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 I mean, as I understand the basic logic, if you boil it down to its essential idea, it is basically three questions: 1 - How much creative power do natural process have to create complex things. 2 - What are the limits of this creative power (i.e. what is the maximum level of complexity this creative power can give rise to). 3 - Does the complexity of the most simple cell cross this limit. I am not sure that 1 is at all well posed. How do you define carefully creative power? However you do this we see evolution in action - so there is enough creative power. 2 also depends on your definitions. 3 again depends on your definition - and if the answer is yes, then maybe you have the wrong definition. The ID comes into really by the questions you have posed and simply answering then by -- you guessed it -- God did it.
SimonFunnell Posted July 24, 2016 Author Posted July 24, 2016 Well lets take a mobile phone. I think must people would agree that natural processes (wind blowing, rain falling, chemical reactions, atomic activity and so on) lack the power to create (lack the creative power) a mobile phone. Therefore a mobile quite clearly passes the limits of the creative power of natural processes. If a mobile phone passes the limit of the creative powers of natural process, then there must be a limit. Scientific research into understanding this limitation could yield useful intelligence.
EdEarl Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 I mean, as I understand the basic logic, if you boil it down to its essential idea, it is basically three questions: 1 - How much creative power do natural process have to create complex things. 2 - What are the limits of this creative power (i.e. what is the maximum level of complexity this creative power can give rise to). 3 - Does the complexity of the most simple cell cross this limit. There is of course no religion in that, they are perfectly valid questions. Now if the answer to number 3 is 'yes' then the most simple cell is not the result of natural processes (which, as I understand it, is what evolutionists believe), meaning it must be the result of something else. At this point, if the answer to question 3 is 'yes' then its not unreasonable to think it might be the result of an intelligent agent. That is all that is said about an intelligent agent. Where is the religion in that? You suggest either natural processes or other than natural processes create life. There is no evidence for anything happening except by natural processes. There are things we cannot explain, but that does not mean they occur for any other reason except a natural process. At one time, people thought comets were signs from a god; no. People are trying to answer all the questions we cannot now answer. Some are hard, but scientists are making progress. Scientists agree on the nature of evidence, but I've noticed people who believe in the supernatural think some things are evidence that scientists do not. The result is perpetual disagreement, and each side believe the other has a bizarre mindset. AFAIK this scenario blocks true communication between the two sides, and cannot be resolved.
ajb Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) Scientific research into understanding this limitation could yield useful intelligence. So, because we invented mobile phones, God must have invented us? Is that your argument? Edited July 24, 2016 by ajb
EdEarl Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) I mean, as I understand the basic logic, if you boil it down to its essential idea, it is basically three questions: 1 - How much creative power do natural process have to create complex things. 2 - What are the limits of this creative power (i.e. what is the maximum level of complexity this creative power can give rise to). 3 - Does the complexity of the most simple cell cross this limit. There is of course no religion in that, they are perfectly valid questions. Now if the answer to number 3 is 'yes' then the most simple cell is not the result of natural processes (which, as I understand it, is what evolutionists believe), meaning it must be the result of something else. At this point, if the answer to question 3 is 'yes' then its not unreasonable to think it might be the result of an intelligent agent. That is all that is said about an intelligent agent. Where is the religion in that? This scenario is an example of my idea of not evidence...well, it is evidence man is creative. Edited July 24, 2016 by EdEarl 1
Delta1212 Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Well lets take a mobile phone. I think must people would agree that natural processes (wind blowing, rain falling, chemical reactions, atomic activity and so on) lack the power to create (lack the creative power) a mobile phone. Therefore a mobile quite clearly passes the limits of the creative power of natural processes. If a mobile phone passes the limit of the creative powers of natural process, then there must be a limit. Scientific research into understanding this limitation could yield useful intelligence. Unless life is considered to be a natural process, in which case natural processes did, in fact, create a mobile phone. 3
EdEarl Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Unless life is considered to be a natural process, in which case natural processes did, in fact, create a mobile phone. All things and processes, all things in the Universe, are natural; thus, things people do are natural (we aren't magic). There is no evidence of anything supernatural. 1
SimonFunnell Posted July 24, 2016 Author Posted July 24, 2016 Unless life is considered to be a natural process, in which case natural processes did, in fact, create a mobile phone. The problem with that is that the natural processes that gave rise to the mobile phone (intelligent agents) could not have possibly given rise to the first cell, because that's intelligent design. So natural processes here must exclude biological life and intelligent agents.
ajb Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) So natural processes here must exclude biological life and intelligent agents. This might not be so easy for evolution ... for one the pressures of natural selection may come from other organisms - think about the predator prey arms race. Secondly, some of the mutations in the DNA that drive 'genetric drift' can come from viruses. Anyway, ID is not a scientific theory. There are no claims of any theory of ID that can be tested. It is just not science. Edited July 24, 2016 by ajb 2
pzkpfw Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) ... 3 - Does the complexity of the most simple cell cross this limit. ... Now if the answer to number 3 is 'yes' then the most simple cell is not the result of natural processes ... With this you seem to have fallen into the irreducible complexity trap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html . ------------------------------------ . ... Anyway, ID is not a scientific theory. There are no claims of any theory of ID that can be tested. It is just not science. Yep. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District | Direct examination of Dr. Michael J. Behe continued. Q. And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct? A Yes. Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct? A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well. Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct? A That is correct. Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct? A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories. Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe? A Well, I am not a historian of science. ... (It's pretty long, can't quote all of it.) Edited July 24, 2016 by pzkpfw 1
SimonFunnell Posted July 24, 2016 Author Posted July 24, 2016 Lets try and focus on the topic. When I talk about natural processes, I guess I am talking about the laws of physics and chemistry. Would people agree or would they define it as something else? Remember that we cannot include life in natural processes as we are looking for the process that created life. So the basic question is can the laws of physics and chemistry compose a simple cell. As I understand it, this is what evolutionists believe, that the laws of physics and chemistry gave rise to the first cell (like in a primordial soup). Am I correct in thinking this? Thanks. -1
Delta1212 Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 That's not actually a part of the theory of evolution, and it doesn't really matter where the first cell came from in order for evolution to take place. It's a theory describing how life evolves over time, not a description of where life came from. But most people do think that, yes. 1
Strange Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Well lets take a mobile phone. I think must people would agree that natural processes (wind blowing, rain falling, chemical reactions, atomic activity and so on) lack the power to create (lack the creative power) a mobile phone. Therefore a mobile quite clearly passes the limits of the creative power of natural processes. That doesn't define a limit on the complexity of things that require a designer. It just says that mobile phones were designed by humans because they are useful. The human brain, for example, is far more complex and was obviously not designed. So your "logic" fails. Remember that we cannot include life in natural processes as we are looking for the process that created life. So you are trying to separate life from "natural process" so that you can claim that natural process could not produce life. Once again, a religious argument produces a classic example of the fallacy of begging the question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
EdEarl Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) Why do you consider the human brain's ability to design things not part of natural processes? Where do you draw the line? Some termites build mounds taller than a man, and wind blowing, rain falling, chemical reactions, atomic activity and so on lack the power to create a termite mound, nor can these things make a sugar crystal. Is it natural for a chimpanzee to make a spear and kill prey? Is it natural for a dolphin to use sonar? Is it natural for people to use sonar? Is it natural for ants to grow a garden? Is it natural for a person to grow a garden? A bower (bird) makes a bower to attract females, and it may take seven years for them to learn the craft well enough to succeed and mate. Men make things, including traps. Originally they were made for survival, now we can buy a mouse trap, to kill offensive rodents. Spiders build traps to catch food. Edited July 24, 2016 by EdEarl
SimonFunnell Posted July 24, 2016 Author Posted July 24, 2016 Well sure humans are part of the general natural process. But are you then saying that somehow humans (intelligent agents) gave rise to the first cell? Surely the idea is to eliminate intelligent agents from the creation of life?
EdEarl Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about the first cell, because I don't know anything about it. There have been some interesting chemical experiments, but no one knows AFAIK.
Recommended Posts