Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Teleologist]

Teleologist asked:

So your test confirms that the Mount Rushmore-like structure on Mars is an artifact?

Stu answered:

Yes but it was the chisel marks that clinched it.

If an advanced engineering process was used that didn't leave any "marks", a mount Rushmore-like structure on Mars would still be considered an artifact.

Stu wrote:

Dropping what is known to be man made designed artifact into an otherwise wholly natural surrounding which does not need design to form its shape, makes Mt Rushmore artificial.

The scenario I've provided is that of a Mount Rushmore-LIKE structure on Mars. I'm certainly not talking about the actual earthly Mount Rushmore being transported to Mars. I'm talking about a mountain with faces on it. My illustration works even if the faces on an earthly Mount Rushmore never existed. The reason that scientists would conclude that faces on a Martian mountain was an artifact is not because they would have exhausted the space of all natural possibilities. After all, the space of yet-to-be-discovered natural causes that generate faces on mountains remains unexplored by scientists. Rather, they wouldn't look for the natural cause of faces on mountains because no one has given them any reason to look for such a cause. And no one has given them any reason, because, of course, there is none.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

James Bond wrote:


I never claimed ID was a scientific theory. I compare it with origin of life research. Witness simply that there is no theory of abiogenesis. Instead, there are countless speculations with very little consensus (apart from the appeal to a reductionist approach employing only non-teleological causes). The notion of panspermy (although not directed panspermy) is beginning to be mentioned among scientists without scoffing. Articles with the most meager results (stringing together a half-dozen amino acids or so without an enzyme) get published in Science or Nature. Or as Paul Davies writes in his book about abiogenesis:

"Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit they are baffled."

Thus, the question is why are scientists still so baffled? At a time when we understand biology, chemistry, and physics better than ever, why has not the study of abiogenesis been proportionately enlightened?

Some topics of science take longer to make progress than others. "Why are scientists still so baffled?" As if there is something profound that scientists are all of sudden baffled by one peculiar problem. You just don't know how science works. Scientists are always baffled. There are millions of unanswered questions in all branches of science. The more one knows the more he knows that he doesn't know. Why pick a particular topic and compare it with ID? Becaus you can't even name another unanswered scientific problem?

And if you are not claiming ID as a scientific theory, why compare it to science?

 

[Teleologist]

James Bond wrote:

Scientists are always baffled. There are millions of unanswered questions in all branches of science. Why pick a particular topic and compare it with ID? Because you can't even name another unanswered scientific problem?

No, not at all. I picked the OOL (origin of life) because that's where the ID inference begins. The ID critics want proof of ID which you have pointed out means overwhelming evidence. At the same time they are sure abiogenesis has occurred despite the fact that researchers in this field are baffled.

I'm not faulting OOL researchers for being baffled. I'm just pointing out the double standard of the ID critics. They need to cut ID researchers the same slack they cut OOL researchers. OOL researchers don't have a theory yet. They are building an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case that's sensitive to subtle clues. ID doesn't have a theory yet. It's researchers are likewise building an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case that's sensitive to subtle clues. But that's not good enough for the ID critics. The “evidence” they need for ID must be shocking, undeniable, and revolutionary.

I’m not interested in providing some type of shock for the ID critics. I’m interested in whether an explicit teleological approach can carry out a progressive investigation that serves to weaken or strengthen ID suspicions and whether it can help expand our understanding of biotic reality.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

James Bond wrote:


No, not at all. I picked the OOL (origin of life) because that's where the ID inference begins. The ID critics want proof of ID which you have pointed out means overwhelming evidence. At the same time they are sure abiogenesis has occurred despite the fact that researchers in this field are baffled.

I'm not faulting OOL researchers for being baffled. I'm just pointing out the double standard of the ID critics. They need to cut ID researchers the same slack they cut OOL researchers. OOL researchers don't have a theory yet. They are building an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case that's sensitive to subtle clues. ID doesn't have a theory yet. It's researchers are likewise building an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case that's sensitive to subtle clues. But that's not good enough for the ID critics. The “evidence” they need for ID must be shocking, undeniable, and revolutionary.

I’m not interested in providing some type of shock for the ID critics. I’m interested in whether an explicit teleological approach can carry out a progressive investigation that serves to weaken or strengthen ID suspicions and whether it can help expand our understanding of biotic reality.

There are no such thing as "ID researchers." No one will cut them some slack because they don't exist. The proponents of ID are not researchers. They are propogandist for the Churches. You present a plausible logical argument for ID based science, there will be many scientists who will jump at the opportunity to do research. The potential reward for this is huge - certain Nobel Prizes are at stake.

The Big Bang theory was proposed by a priest. It was definitely not mainstream at the time. But almost everyone who contributed to its early development eventually won a Nobel Prize. The scientific community is very open minded when it comes to unconventional theories.

The difference between the Big Bang theory and the ID is, Big Bang was a logical extension of astronomical observations at the time, but the ID theory makes no logical sense.

No wonder you can't find a scientist working on the ID theory.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Teleologist asked:

Stu answered:

If an advanced engineering process was used that didn't leave any "marks", a mount Rushmore-like structure on Mars would still be considered an artifact.

Stu wrote:

The scenario I've provided is that of a Mount Rushmore-LIKE structure on Mars. I'm certainly not talking about the actual earthly Mount Rushmore being transported to Mars. I'm talking about a mountain with faces on it. My illustration works even if the faces on an earthly Mount Rushmore never existed. The reason that scientists would conclude that faces on a Martian mountain was an artifact is not because they would have exhausted the space of all natural possibilities. After all, the space of yet-to-be-discovered natural causes that generate faces on mountains remains unexplored by scientists. Rather, they wouldn't look for the natural cause of faces on mountains because no one has given them any reason to look for such a cause. And no one has given them any reason, because, of course, there is none.

Faces that "look like" faces is not a very good description when using Mt Rushmore as a comparison, is it!?

So the electric toaster on Jupiter. What reason would ID give to look for it... Oh and as you don't seem to first require any evidence of faces in rocks before you look for them, what do you conclude the cause of the toaster is ... artifact or natural?

ID is about as evident as Jupiter’s toaster and your Mt Rushmore look alike Rock Faces.

But anyway, just what would you ever hope to find out about Intelligent Design, Toasters and Faces in Rocks, (after first finding substantive evidence for any of them) , that formal use of the scientific method through the established process of science would not be showing you in the first place?

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from pattersb:

you do understand that you are describing faith, and then in the same sentence suggesting it is meaningless in the scientific process.

I assume you're referring to the idea that belief in the scientific process is as much a faith as a belief in the Creator God. I would suggest to you that you yourself have as much faith in science as anyone. For example, we show you two containers of clear liquid and tell you that one is water and the other is a mixture of two chemicals which, after scientific analysis, has been determined to be a deadly mixture of acids which will eat your skin and bones away upon contact. Both are odorless and colorless. We tell you that you can win $1,000,000 if you plunge your hand into either one, take your pick. I suspect that you would not trust in God to make sure you plunged your hand into the right one, or trust in God that he would help you adapt to life without a hand and forearm.

I have faith in what I can see, what can be demonstrated to me. Creationists have faith in what they feel intuitively or believe in their heart of hearts.

It's strange to me that I would have to point this out since there are countless examples like this in everyday life. We all have utmost faith in the scientific process and we live that faith every day, It seems that for the religious, when science contradicts their faith, that's when they get upset.

Quote from pattersb:
The same people who shriek about banning books are the first to fight tooth and nail to ban a theory, and disallow people from having a free choice as to how and where their kids are educated. Simply advocating for Science History courses that cover past versions of ID might suffice.

I have already suggested my own theory. It is the Green Cheesian Theory. It holds that the Moon is made of Green Cheese. Before you condemn me for being a sarcastic atheist, please note - there is exactly the same amount of proof for my theory as there is for ID. That is none, zero, nada, none whatsoever. If this thread has shown anything, it is that.

I am not against teaching any theory that has been reasonably supported by real science. The idea that theories will eventually be proved wrong is a source of great satisfaction to me, since I believe that in this manner, we progress. Again, everyone here owes much of what they have to science.

Just because you claim you have a theory, it doesn't mean that it has any validity.

The believers here remind me of the pseudo-environmentalists sitting in Starbuck's sipping a triple Latte, from a paper cup. If ID'ers have such strong convictions, why don't they act on them and really prove that they eschew the results of science? Move to an island and eat coconuts. Reject the faith-based religion of science.

I will guess that no one will be doing that anytime soon.

Western society is fundamentaly secular, especially in its public face. Religion is a private matter. If you want your kids to have an orthodox education, give it to them in the privacy of your home.

 

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

It is illogical to ask what happened before time began.

Your point was that there is a finite amount of time between the Big Bang and what we can know from science. That point is wrong and illogical. We can infinitely approach the point of the Big Bang, to as close as our current technology allows. In other words, if we can see things happening in 1 yoctosecond today, we can get as close as 1 yoctosecond from the beginning of time. If we improve that time by a factor of 10 tomorrow, then we can push that limit by a factor of 10 closer to the beginning of time.

Time did not begin 1 yoctosecond after the Big Bang. Time began at exactly the point of the Big Bang. You are wrong and you still refuse to learn.

First of all much of what you are saying is theory. And you seem to be saying as the theory improves it speculates better. But do you really know that to be true?


Your statement regarding time seems to be contradicting Hawking and others. Please cite you reference for time beginning at the moment of the big bang and not some short moment after the big bang. You seem to be adding to the theory right now.

3. I think I read that there is a period after the bang that was not subject to our current laws or understandings of physics and therefore we well never know what happened right after the beginning. Again I think I read hawking to say this . You need to cite a source confirming you speculation.

4. it is not illogical to ask what happened during and before the big bang. I saw well known physicists speaking on this subject on PBS.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from jem:

First of all much of what you are saying is theory. And you seem to be saying as the theory improves it speculates better. But do you really know that to be true?


Your statement regarding time seems to be contradicting Hawking and others. Please cite you reference for time beginning at the moment of the big bang and not some short moment after the big bang. You seem to be adding to the theory right now.

3. I think I read that there is a period after the bang that was not subject to our current laws or understandings of physics and therefore we well never know what happened right after the beginning. Again I think I read hawking to say this . You need to cite a source confirming you speculation.

4. it is not illogical to ask what happened during and before the big bang. I saw well known physicists speaking on this subject on PBS.

You don't even understand where your problem is. It is illogical to ask what is before time starts. If there is no time, there is no "before" or "after." You're reading Hawking wrong. I don't need a source to confirm my "speculation." You can go read the past 20 years of Physical Review and the Astrophysics Journal. If you don't want to or don't understand it, I don't have the obligation to teach you.

The so-called "current laws" is a fleeting boundary. New discoveries are changing it everyday. Your fixation of Hawking's 20 year old comment shows your ignorance of science.

 

[Teleologist]

The ID approach is much like searching for man-made objects found in places where man could never had made them. Similar to SETI. When confronted with such objects, scientists would conclude they were designed by an agent with a human-like intelligence. They wouldn't deny intelligent design over concerns about infinite regress or the inability to identify the designer(s).

 

[pattersb]

Quote from traderNik:

I assume you're referring to the idea that belief in the scientific process is as much a faith as a belief in the Creator God. I would suggest to you that you yourself have as much faith in science as anyone. For example, we show you two containers of clear liquid and tell you that one is water and the other is a mixture of two chemicals which, after scientific analysis, has been determined to be a deadly mixture of acids which will eat your skin and bones away upon contact. Both are odorless and colorless. We tell you that you can win $1,000,000 if you plunge your hand into either one, take your pick. I suspect that you would not trust in God to make sure you plunged your hand into the right one, or trust in God that he would help you adapt to life without a hand and forearm.

I have faith in what I can see, what can be demonstrated to me. Creationists have faith in what they feel intuitively or believe in their heart of hearts.

It's strange to me that I would have to point this out since there are countless examples like this in everyday life. We all have utmost faith in the scientific process and we live that faith every day, It seems that for the religious, when science contradicts their faith, that's when they get upset.




I have already suggested my own theory. It is the Green Cheesian Theory. It holds that the Moon is made of Green Cheese. Before you condemn me for being a sarcastic atheist, please note - there is exactly the same amount of proof for my theory as there is for ID. That is none, zero, nada, none whatsoever. If this thread has shown anything, it is that.

I am not against teaching any theory that has been reasonably supported by real science. The idea that theories will eventually be proved wrong is a source of great satisfaction to me, since I believe that in this manner, we progress. Again, everyone here owes much of what they have to science.

Just because you claim you have a theory, it doesn't mean that it has any validity.

The believers here remind me of the pseudo-environmentalists sitting in Starbuck's sipping a triple Latte, from a paper cup. If ID'ers have such strong convictions, why don't they act on them and really prove that they eschew the results of science? Move to an island and eat coconuts. Reject the faith-based religion of science.

I will guess that no one will be doing that anytime soon.

Western society is fundamentaly secular, especially in its public face. Religion is a private matter. If you want your kids to have an orthodox education, give it to them in the privacy of your home.

"The believers here remind me of the pseudo-environmentalists sitting in Starbuck's sipping a triple Latte"




(That's the funniest thing I've read in sometime... Nail on the head!)

OK, you've outed me. I tend to look at fundementalists rather suspiciously also, but admire them never-the-less for upholding their faith, especially in the face of such vigorous ridicule. Thier faith is one that mostly advocates loving thy neighbor, turning the other cheek, etc... and IMHO should be allowed to flourish.

For the vast majority of people in the US, it is more benefitial to look for a spirtual guide in Jesus Christ than Openhemier.

A person's faith is not required to meet the rigors of a comprehensive peer review. Many of the world's greatest scientists have invoked the name of "God". God is a personal ideal, a source of perfection.

Honestly, you should do yourself a favor and attend a mass. A good pastor steers clear of the origins of man and fire-and-brimstone but instead focuses on living a rigtheous life by honoring thy mother and father, not killing, etc, etc ... For most people, this is much more meaningful and pratical information to guide them in their everyday decision making than F=MA.

Stephen Colbert performs his skits while sitting in a navity scene and mocks christianity, and the Left shrieks about Faux News. The anti-religious hold up the transgressions of a few Christians with the hopes of painting them all of them as frauds, hypocrits, imbeciles who worship santa claus, etc... It is quite maddening to me...

Like I've said before, now that Bush has been muzzled, perhaps the mocking will quiet down. He can now longer pose as a man doing the will of god by invading Muslim countries.

If anything ID opens up the existence of god to the scientific processes, and if this thread is any identication it wouldn't exactly hold it's own. Today's youth would be well served if given the opportunity to study many of the theories of creation developed throughout history, just not under the guise of Science. (I wouldn't include evolution in this, evolution is a process, not a proven theory of a beginning)