Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Intelligent design - going away?

Discussion in 'The Members Lounge' started by Oli, Nov 16, 2005.

  1. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    oli wrote:

    It may not be intentional but you keep misrepresenting ID as being something that it doesn't claim to be. God is not a necessary part of ID.

    I quoted this earler:

    It's Intelligent Design theory not Intelligent Designer as you keep implying.


    Irreducible complexity to name only one aspect of ID can be refuted thus is falsifiable.
    Dembski had this to say on that topic:


    In re: to Darwinism and falsifiability he had this to say;
    Long but IMO on point:


    Care to give some examples of how Darwinism and the BBT are being observed and tested? Each link in the chain you say? That should be quite interesting. Since you are a physics type I would really like to hear about observing and testing Quantum mechanics( especially Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ) :wink:
     
  2. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    More accurately: "it started but we don't yet know how or why".

    Anyone who claims to know the answer to that question is a liar or deluded.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  3. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    Exactly how can you have 'intelligent design' without an intelligent designer?

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  4. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    There are speculative ways to address that question regarding the nature of what intelligence is and so forth but one needen't even go there. Instead it is enough to state that ID as a theory does not attempt to investigate the designer, the nature and characterists and so forth anymore than the BBT addresses where the matter/energy in the universe comes from. What you are speaking of are implications arising from the successful detecting of intelligence rather than the search for intelligence itself which is more limited in scope.

    What do you think about SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence?
    Science or pseudoscience masquerading as science?
     
  5. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    I think that's dodging the issue (and presumably so did the judge in the court case). Intelligence is a characteristic of a thinking being, and design is a deliberate act by such a being. The ID supporters seem to be saying "we believe that the Universe was created quite deliberately by what must have been an extremely intelligent and powerful being, but of course that doesn't necessarily mean God...." Ho, ho, that's a good one :D What else would you call such a being?

    The purpose (and AFAIK the process) is scientific: they are testing an hypothesis by searching for data and analysing what they find. So far they have produced negative results (as scientific experiments often do), which provides some infomation even if it wasn't what they were hoping for. Why should it be regarded as pseudo-science?

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  6. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Re designer:
    from http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... coMainPage
    My italics. The Discovery Institute is one of the (if not the) main publicist(s)/ promoters of ID. Cause/ Designer. Semantics.
     
  7. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    tw wrote:

    Judges in court cases will not determine whether ID is ultimately accepted or rejected as science(except within the narrow confines of their jurisdiction). they can only rule on legal issues and have no scientific knowledge or authority.

    The methods used for detecting extraterrestrial intelligence are not fundamentally different from methods used to detect intelligence in nature.
    The same criticisms levelled against ID could be directed against SETI.

    There is no doubt that some who champion ID do so for religious reasons. Motivations behind those who propose ID will not change the nature of the inquiry provided sound unbiased methods are used. It is perfectly legitimate to detect intelligence in the design of the universe without being able to explain the fundamental nature of that intelligence just as the BBT purports to explain the expansion of the universe but cannot address the issue of where that matter and energy came from nor what force initiated it's expansion. How is that different from detecting intelligence in the design of the univrse without being able to describe the designer?

     
  8. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    But the court has ruled on intent which is what they do.

    SETI is an experiment, to see if there's anything there. There is a possibility which may or may not pan out.
    ID has declared that there is intelligence and that we should accept their answer.
     
  9. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    oli wrote:

    On matters of law only. Any ruling made has no effect whatsoever on science.


    Where is this declaration? ID is the search for intelligent design in the universe. It is an experiment. It may or may not pan out.

    How can SETI determine if a signal is the product of intelligence or is from a natural source if they have no way to determine indirectly what characteristics are indicative of intelligence?
    Why would you tend to credit a radio astronomer who indicated that intelligence was behind a radio signal he received yet you would ridicule a biologist who indicated that he believed intelligence was behind a biological design he analyzed? Is it because you would resist any implication, no matter the evidence, that there was a creator of the universe? What credible evidence have you seen that there are extraterrestrials out and about in the universe?
     
  10. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    SETI is looking for signals - of any sort that may or may not indicate intelligence - usually specified as a mathematical sequence or something like that.
    ID is not the search. ID proponents have stated time and again that, among other things "irreducible complexity" is evidence of intelligence. They state that they have found it, not that they;'re searching. I gave one such statement in the quote from the Discovery Institute, above.

    As for the court, yes a legal decision, and the legal decision was that the intent behind ID as promoted currently is religious.
     
  11. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    oli wrote:

    A pattern of signals that would indicate intelligence? How is that testable?
    How could one contruct an experiment to test it's validity?


    Evidence? yes.
    Conclusive evidence? no.
    Their analysis of the universe is the search. The search (the analysis) is ongoing.

    When Darwinists point to certain things in the fossil record as evidence of evolution are they then finished with all further research because they have reached a conclusive finale? Does their opinion that that evidence indicates an evolutionary process then make them biased and untrustworthy? This is what you seem to be saying about ID proponents who's opinion is that the evidence indicates an intelligent design.

    I'm not disputing it. There is no reason to quote a judge in a discussion about science as I'm not discussing the legal case(which has no bearing on science) but the case that is being made in the scientific community.
     
  12. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    I don't think that SETI and ID are at all comparable.

    If SETI detects signals which appear by their characteristics to be artificial (a numerically ascending series or some other mathematical sequence) then there would be an intense scientific debate about whether or not such a signal could have occurred naturally. If no natural cause can be identified, then it would be tagged as "possible evidence for ETI, pending more information" - and you can be sure that research efforts would multiply dramatically.

    The basis of ID seems to be that life, the universe and all that is too complex to have occurred by accident, so it must have been deliberately designed. That is really no more than the anti-evolution argument with new clothes on. It is, in effect, the opposite of a scientific process, in that it assumes that natural processes could not account for the complexity. The job of scientific research is to show how they could, and it has had a remarkable run of success at that task, over several centuries.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  13. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    ... and presumably, since a radio signal will cost next to nothing, an attempt to reply (although conversations may take a while :lol: )
     
  14. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    tw wrote:

    The evidence in some cases points toward intelligence. Methods of evaluating biological organisms for evidence of intelligence is what ID is about. Most critics are hung up on the implications of such a conclusion i.e. that a creator exists. Thus the critics make the claim that the implication is what ID is really about despite the fact that the most vocal and eloquent proponents of ID state explicitly that the theory does not address the nature of the intelligence but merely attempts to detect it's presence. There are many examples in science of phenomenon which can be detected but the nature of which cannot be fully explained from subatomic particles to gravity.





    The entrenched dogma in the scientific community is that Darwinism explains the origin of life. This we are told and this we are expected to accept and defend. No matter that the theory is incomplete and depends upon processes that even it's proponents are forced to admit aren't understood such as the random mutations necessary for natural selection to function as advertised. Nevertheless if one dares to point out that even if the emperor does have clothes he is wearing nothing more than a thong then bitter invective and attacks on one's integrity will surely follow.

    ID does not have to be anti-evolution. There is little doubt that organisms can evolve. To accept that does not mean that one accepts Darwinism whole cloth and without criticism. Intuitively one can appreciate that a good design that was intended to last would have the ability to adapt to changes in the environment. Our genetic code is what gives organisms that ability.

    I don't expect to change entrenched views or open closed minds with this debate. If someone who reads it begins to question conventional wisdom and think critically rather than accept blindly what they are told by the scientific establishment then I'm content.
    The whole weight of the scientific establishment has been very wrong in the past and will no doubt be so again in the future.
     
  15. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    Have ID supporters identified what kind of evidence would indicate intelligence?
    Of course they say that. That's because they want to get it accepted as a 'science' so they can force schools to teach it in science lessons. But that position is disingenous in the extreme. To say that they are looking for evidence of intelligence - which, as I've said, is an aspect of a thinking mind - without acknowledging that if they find such evidence it will be indistinguishable from evidence of the proof of God, is a compete con. Do you suppose that if they found such 'evidence', the ID supporters wouldn't be crowing from the rooftops that it proved the existence of God?

    No it doesn't. Darwinism consists essentially of two parts:
    Evolution - based on examination of fossils and also of variations in living species - which says that living things change over time, and:
    Natural Selection - based mostly on logical deduction from observations - which suggests a mechanism by which evolution might take place.
    Neither says anything about how life originated in the first place. There are other theories about that, but not from Darwin.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  16. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    tw wrote:

    The analysis is ongoing but yes they have specified some criteria, irreducible complexity for example is a special case of complexity specification criteria. Dembski's book The Design Inference provides more details on detecting intelligence by the elimination of alternative explanations.

    Quote:
    Inasmuch as you aren't acquainted with the people involved your analysis of their motives is based on ignorance and not persuasive. You say that they lie because they have ulterior motives with no evidence to support such a claim.

    Actually Darwinism is based on 5 themes: 1. probability and chance 2. the nature power and scope of selection 3.adaptation and teleology 4.nominalism versus essestialism about species 5. the tempo and mode of evolutionary change.

    Darwinism has developed in many ways unforeseen by Darwin.

    *from Darwinism..Stanford .edu

    You see I'm just doing what the critics of ID are doing, including yourself i.e. not addressing the theory but instead an implication of the theory.
    Darwinism does address the origin of life by implication; random chance is the motivating factor behind the origin of life.
     
  17. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    Which is a never-ending and pointless exercise, since experience up to now has shown that complexity only remains inexplicable until science gets around to finding the explanation.

    Try reading some of Dawkins' books on evolution (The Blind Watchmaker was the original text) where he deals specifically with the question "surely there is no way that this example of complexity could have developed naturally?" and shows how it could.

    However, I think we've run this one into the ground. You're not going to convince me that ID represents genuine science, and I'm not going to convince you that it doesn't. End of debate.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  18. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    tw wrote:

    I will agree to read this book when you agree to read and objectively assess one of Dembski's books on the subject, preferably The Design Inference :wink:

    I must say it would be quite instructive if you could provide an example of irreducible complexity occuring naturally inasmuch as no one has been able to do so convincingly as of yet. Keep in mind what is meant by irreducible complexity which is not the same thing as mere complexity.

    Just when we get to something interesting ? If you aren't able to overcome the hurdle of irreducible complexity though I will understand :grin: :grin:
     
  19. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    A news item for information, as reported in a UK newspaper:

    The Independent, Wed 21 Dec 2005:

    Teaching of ‘Intelligent Design’ is Outlawed

    The campaign to try to force schools in America to teach an alternative to Darwinism has suffered a severe setback after a judge ruled that to do so was a violation of the constitution.

    The judge also said that proponents of the so-called “Intelligent Design” (ID) theory had repeatedly lied about the religious convictions that drove them.

    In a ruling that will reverberate throughout the country, District Judge John Jones ruled the Dover school board in Pennsylvania had been wrong to insist a statement about Intelligent Design be read to pupils during biology. He said the policy represented “breathtaking inanity”.

    “The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the board who voted for the ID policy,” the judge wrote, following a six-week trial. “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would, time and again, lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID policy.”

    The ruling is a blow to Christian conservatives who, in more than 30 states, have been pressing for the teaching of Creationism. Many of the members of the Dover school board which voted for the measure were fundamentalist Christians.

    Proponents of Intelligent Design claim life is too complicated to have been created by accident. Opponents say this is a little-disguised version of Creationism, which the Supreme Court has previously ruled should not be taught in schools.


    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  20. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, as i indicated previously this particular aspect of the debate has nothing to do with science and everything to do with activist judges who through their legal rulings attempt to change society to conform to their view. BTW that ruling has zero legal effect outside the jurisdiction of that particular court.
     

Share This Page