Haezed

It's bait and switch. Don't buy into it!!

See, I don't think ID says anything officially or otherwise. I think some leading creationists have deceptively packaged their beliefs into a phrase which connotates nothing about creationism. It is a mistake for us all to buy into that phrase because ultimately, to most people, words mean nothing more and nothing less than what they actually say. This is amply evidenced by the poll cited in this thread. When people are asked whether they believe in Intelligent Design, they don't know the history of how the phrase developed.

Actually, I think there are two initial choices. 1. All universes in existence, which might be just ours, have these same rules which seemed fine tuned for life. 2. There are multiple, perhaps infinite universes, each with differing rules and ours simply had the right combination of rules to produce life. Rees opts for #2. If #1 is true, the options are a. raw chance, b. intelligent design. A, by definition, is highly improbable. Although Martin Rees' book is on my short list of books I have to read this year, I've not gotten to it yet. However, the article suggests that he at least feels comfortable with an opinion leaning towards #2. I'm wondering if this is more intuition in play than anything else but can't say, obviously, unless I read the book. My uneducated intuition would be the reverse - it seems more likely that there was fine tuning by intelligence of the initial design than that there are an infinite number of universes with different physical rules in play. For one thing, I can't understand, and from some reviews, Rees does not explain, why rules would differ from one universe to another. This seems squarely outside of the realm of current science, but at least science appears to have narrowed the decision to these two alternatives and given us decisions points at which to aim our intuition (which will mostly likely be completely wrong). All of this is to repeat the point that I hate how the phrase "intelligent design" has become so tarnished by creationists because I think our species may finally be nearing a point where the issues can be intelligently discussed with something other than blind faith.

No worries. Half of the battle in advocacy is over what you call a thing. I would not lightly concede the more defensible terrain of "intelligent design" to those who believe in divine daily intervention in life.

It is possible the definition is in flux as discussions such as these rage on about the concepts. My hope is that a disciplined intelligent definition will emerge and flush out those who are trying to bait and switch.

I'm not certain you've read all of my posts. My view is that the label "intelligent design" has been commandeered and dismissed overbroadly both by its proponents and detractors. It is really a neat label for the hypothesis that, well, the universe was intelligently designed. The label itself says nothing of intervention by intelligence after the initial design. That's the form of ID I've semi-defended. M. Rees, no scientific slouch, seems to say we have three choices to explain the incredible fine tuning of the universe which allows life, even matter, to form: (i) incredible coincidence, (ii) intelligent design/divine intervention or (iii) varied infinite universes in which a few like our own get very lucky and life can form. These three hypothesis are what I'm saying is presently untestable, not the theory of evolution in which I am sold. For the record, I believe the universe is 14 or so billion years old, the earth is 4 billion or so years old and that life evolved through a process of natural selection. None of this precludes intelligent design. I think that both the proponents and detractors of ID make the discussion difficult by sliding too many camels into a rather smallish tent. Those of us who are considering the idea expressed by the actual words are pushed to the outside to scratch our head at the rumpus within.

I'm certain M. Rees gave appropriate credit to Robert Dicke.

That is certainly more than the label implies. It's kind of funny how the critics of Intelligent Design have to reduce it to ID, and I don't think that is just for faster typing. Calling them IDers makes them more dismissable. Maybe they should be dismissed but I also wonder if there isn't some breadth and diversity to the ID belief system. If someone were to ask me in a poll, "do you believe in intelligent design," my answer would be that it is as likely as a pure coincidence in the "six numbers" or in an infinity of differing multiverses. Again, many in the movement might but, and I'm agreeing with you, many of the people in that poll certainly did not. Actually, the phrase connotates less than that. It only says that some intelligence(s) designed the rules of the universe, e.g. the six numbers. This intelligence might be benign or perverse. It might care about life or something else entirely. For all we know, creating universes is a form of art or entertainment. We could be part of the ultimate reality show. Inteligent Designers might intervene to help life or it might sit back and watch it unfold for reasons of their own. That's why I think the concept, as it's stated anyway, is a huge concession to science by theology. I don't see ID, at least as the phrase is stated, as being a step backwards from science. I think the debate, and the 55% poll is hopelessly confusing. The movement has chosen its name well, if this is a discreet monolithic movement.... I did a diservice to Levin's wonderful book by quoting that one passage. It has a lot of depth, at least to my lay eye, but I agree such sentiments have nothing to do with natural selection. All Levin said is that it is tempting to see the entire cosmic life as a life factory. She didn't even say she secumbed to the temption. I don't know. One job of a science teacher is to give his students a sense of awe. The best teacher of the masses, at least that comes to my lay mind, was Carl Sagan who acted something as a preacher for science. Envisioning the sweep of the entire cosmic process and occassionally waxing poetic isn't entirely out of line. I don't see anything wrong with M. Rees pointing out to the public or college students that the math and science of today appears to reduce the seemingly fine tuned nature of our origin down to three possibilities: (i) incredible coincidence, (ii) intelligent design or (iii) an infinity of variable universes. I guess I'm frustrated because I think this is where it boils down and the ID folks have commandeered this concept so that it has become an academic leper. Maybe ID comes in different forms?

Excellent point. To this the list I would add: - They are more apt to villify those with whom they disagree than to acknowledge a good faith difference of opinion.

I found this article by M. Rees on his six numbers thinking: "Martin Rees is Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics and Master of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge. He holds the honorary title of Astronomer Royal and also Visiting Professor at Imperial College London and at Leicester University. " He seems to present three possibilities to explain the apparent fine tuning of the unverse: 1. brute fact, i.e. coincidence, 2. divine intervention or 3. the existence of so many countless universes, each with varied physical laws, that at least one had to "roll" the right combination to allow life. If such a scientist as M. Rees can opine from a scientific point of view to reject #1 & #2, but advocate #3, why should I have distain for a scientist who argues for #2?

My head is spinning in with this thread which won't seem to keep still. At least let me know this: If I believe nothing more than that intelligence designed the universe, am I an IDer? Personally, I see ID as a hypothesis which can't be tested, not a theory. Which, to me, sounds like an intelligent design of the universe by God. See for example this book by Reese. Again, I don't see why the concept, if not the practice, of a belief in intelligent design necessitates a total rehab of scientific theory and evidence. I bet the majority of the country believe intelligence designed the universe. Half of the battle is how things are labelled in politics. IDers, as you call them, probably have people like me who don't know what they are really saying in detail but who dont' preclude the possibility of intelligent design. Agreed, and I think it is about packaging. The ID movement chose a good label with which most people agree. Why? I'm not an expert either. I thought ID folks just believed that there is likely intelligence that designed the universe. They point to various physical laws which if slightly tweaked would have precluded any possibility life at all as evidence. I gave the quote of J. Levin of MIT earlier who said it is hard to resist the temptation that the entire cosmic cycle is some kind of factory intended to produce organic life. Would this view be ID? I honestly don't know except that it seems to fit the phrase "intelligent design." Did you ever read Sagan's book, Contact which had a different ending than the movie? It gives one possible way in which God might encode a message. I think they believe the scientific evidence of intelligence in the design is that the physical laws slightly tweaked would have made life of any kind impossible. See, for example, this book. Rees believes that there are six numbers slightly tweaked woudld have precluded the formation of life and matter but he also believes this did not happen as a result of intelligence. I'm not certain what I believe about these kinds of debates but I certainly do not dismiss them as insubstantial.

We are doomed.

I ask because I think there is a valid possibility, if not plausibility, that intelligence designed the universe and set it in motion. I see no evidence that that intelligence has intervened subsequently. It seems a valid, if presently untestable, hypothesis. Anytime I hear someone labelled in such a group, "IDer", "card carrying ACLUer", etc, I start to want to defend the people thrown into the group indiscriminately. I suspect many of those who believe in intelligence in the design of the universe understand that there is a limit as to how far science can go to test the hypothesis. You seem to be saying that the way Intelligence Design is defined by this movement, it rejects evolution. I don't see why intelligent design as a concept does so. I also don't think it's impossible that the hypothesis will forever be untestable. Look at how far the species has come in a nanosecond of time on the cosmic clock in understanding nature. Who is to say we won't find marks of intelligent design in the future? In the meantime, I agree that teaching it as science today is nothing short of bogus. OTOH, I've never sat through what the advocates would consider to be a class on ID.

Please explain to me to the true pOV of ID'ism. Is it monolithic?

If by having a "hand in evolution," you mean He created the the laws of the universe and kickstarted the process with a big bang, I'm with you. That theory is as good as any other at this point in our species' ... well, evolution. It is certainly not silly to believe in the possibility of God in the former sense without accepting that he tinkers with the ongoing process he designed and initiated. It may or may not be a divine spark. The universe could be a simulation in a computer lab somewhere and the Gods are the extradimensional equivalent of geeks on steroids. As I've said numerous times before, with no response, I really regret how creationists misuse the phrase Intelligent Design. By itself, this phrase nicely encapsulates the possibility you are describing - a God or Gods (at least from our POV) designed and initiated the universe. It's a theory, like any other.

I can understand a racial minority that was literally chattel not too long ago would at least have skeptism that racism just vanished. OTOH, when you talk about 40 years, you are talking about before the birth of many of the people on this board. The younger generations were raised during a time when it was extremely uncool to be bigoted and I think there has been an actual paradigm shift. Also, let me ask you, how does it help African Americans to dwell on the history of their birth? If African American youth become convinced by their older generation that they can't get a fair shake in America today, how does that help them? Would it be better to have a little faith that this country provides opportunity for all with talent who work hard and take risks? There is a risk that any formerly oppressed segment of society will indulge in a self-defeating mind set where it is keeping itself down and doesn't recognize the new opportunities that exist in a culture.. You say "white people" did this. Now, if I were to say "black people" did x,y or z negative action, wouldn't I be in dangerous territory? MLK would have us judge each other not by the color of our skin but by the content of our character. My families' ancestors were rich plantation owners who lost their wealth, primarily their slaves, in the war between the states. My family still has one of our relatives' gun from that war. I see this as distant history and in no way feel guilty. It wasn't me. Slavery has an ancient lineage which wasn't always or even usually racial. I agree racial enslavement is especially repulsive but at some point it has to stop being an excuse for irrational behavior.

I'm not sure if I've proved your point or we just agreed all along. I didn't understand your point and certainly agree with these last paragraphs. When you talked about the damage that was produced by "politics motivated by evolution," I admit this threw me for a loop. It seemed that you were blaming science for the political result which would be like blaming the discovery that friction can cause fire for the burning of London in 1666. Thank you for clarifying your point. My only quibble would be that, personally, I can't let my religion "stand alone" against science. I have to mesh the two as best I can. I find it remarkable that creationists have to hide the God ball in the phrase "Intelligent Design." When you think about it, they've conceded a termendous amount of ground to science in a short period of time. I also find it remarkable that so many non-believers have a visceral reaction to the possibility of pure ID, i.e. design at the outset with no subsequent intervention in operation of the design. It's a theory like any other and who knows what the next 200 years will prove or disprove.

This article seems to be an attempt by a Marxist to suggest that that Marxism has the same solid scientific basis as Darwinism. Since Darwin was correct, it is hardly surprising that many intellectual arguments referenced his theory. In fact, it's hard to develop any comprehensive theory about the human condition without in some way referencing Darwin's explanation as to why humans evolved. Darwin's theory of evolution is "linked" to practically everything since it explains how we came to exist. Here again you are suggesting that evolution was the cause of some "bad things to happen in politics."

Ummm... no. No. This is a non sequitur. Actually, I haven't seen much talk on this board about religion. If I was forced to list the top 1,000 factors contributing to the outbreak of WWII, evolution would not make the list. Googling the issue, I see that some creationists make much of the use of the word in Mein Kampf, but the word "evolution" was not used in the context of Darwin's theory. Darwin is not mentioned but the book does have references to God and Jesus. Fundamentally, evolution tells us that we all come from a common lineage. When the white slave owner of an earlier era might african american slaves to monkeys, science teaches us today that we are all descendents of apes and other less intelligent life forms. If you agree it is marvelous science, the world will just have to grow up and get used to evolution.

If someone believes the universe is designed by intelligence, must they also believe that the intelligence has to intervene in the operation of its design? If someone gives into this temptation and also believes that the factory was created with intention, they can still believe in evolution. I see these as two completely unrelated concepts which are mixed both by the religious and those who oppose them.

Potentially, genocide. Compare and contrast that to the status quo as bad as it is, or the Saddam regime, as horrendous as that was. Control "the violence." There are degrees or horrible and what was being suggested by George to John was that what could come would be a human tragedy of genocidal proportions. I don't know if the guys we support are weaker. It's simply easier to tear down than it is to build up. That's the nature of reality. It may take 2-5 years (i really don't know) to build the WTC, and a little bit of resources and a willingness to die will tear them down. That's what we are seeing in Iraq BUT it is different completely from the scenario we are discussing. I see no evidence of that at all. We threw ourselves against ultimate corrpution and evil and we are fighting imported forces and some insurgents and sectarian violence whipped up by all of the above. The vast majority of Iraqis made their way to the polls and want this to work. The only real analogy to Vietnam is that we are suffering without a real end in sight. It's a very weak analogy. For one thing, there was a stable regime before we went in. It was a despicable horrendous regime but it was stable. I think we have some responsibility to give this time and 4 years is miniscule in the sweep of history. The Vietnam analogy is also tricky because it will lead us into a quicksand debate as to what really caused us to lose that war. See, e.g. the Tet offensive.

Note you shift to "overall benefit." You're now talking about net benefit. Smoking has no gross benefit to society so there isn't even an argument about "overall benefits." It's all loss. I had an essential meeting today 45 miles from my office. A bus route would have been uneconomic and counterproductive. How was I to get there? What alternative are you proposing? We'll see if my argument continues to be ignored...

To driving? Yes, of course. I'm not sure that would save lives or that the costs would be similiar. I don't understand your point. My argument is simple: 1. Smoking has zero social benefit and is known to be deadly in certain concentrations. Therefore, I want to know that it is not hurting people before it is used in the public. This wouild be an obvious rule if we were not trying to unwind centuries of custom and addiction. 2. There is an enormous benefit to a mobile society. We can argue about the best policies re car composition, design, or the speed limit but there is no question that cars provide enormous competitive and other advantages to society. 3. It's a nuisance with no corresponding social benefit. Does no one want to take on my rat entrail analogy?

Sorry, I worked my way up the chain before seeing this post. Let me take this one on. No, I would pick an activity which is (i) non-useful to society and (ii) absolutely known to cause harm in some concentrations. Moreover, I didn't rely only on the health aspects but also believe that there is no right to engage in nuisance activities (i.e. actions which are noxious with no social utility) in public spaces. If it became a fad for 20 somethings to start carrying about in public places rotting plates of rat entrails and sniff the vapors from time to time, I think it would be perfectly appropriate for a state legislature to pass legislation banning the practice.

Right. We know this as truth. We don't know that about second hand smoke. When you have the same degree of certainty let me know, but I still won't want you smoking next to me in a public space any more than I would want you carrying a plate of rotting rat entrails.