Politics of evolution

[Haezed]

I found this article by M. Rees on his six numbers thinking:

 

As the start of the twenty-first century, we have identified six numbers that seem especially significant. Two of them relate to the basic forces; two fix the size and overall 'texture' of our Universe and determine whether it will continue for ever; and two more fix the properties of space itself:

 

These six numbers constitute a 'recipe' for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be 'untuned', there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the 'right' combination. This realisation offers a radically new perspective on our Universe, on our place in it, and on the nature of physical laws.

 

"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?

[ParanoiA]

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?

 

As I understand it, no. You'd have to scoff at natural selection and insist, by faith alone, that god or the supernatural is guiding the process we interpret as evolution.

 

Which, to me, sounds like an intelligent design of the universe by God.

 

But it's not since intelligent design rejects natural selection, implying that the hand of god is continuous, or at least interferes regularly rather than the proverbial snowball scenario where god just invents it, and from there it propagates on its own.

 

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."

 

Definitely semantics. I agree that the phrase "intelligent design" sounds quite simply like a belief in god' date=' that created the universe. If god is truly omnipotent and responsible for the universe, then it stands to reason that kind of unfathomable intelligence would elude man's pathetic reasoning skills in contrast.

 

But it's now the new label for a theory. Maybe we need look into "creationists" and see what the difference is, because there certainly is one. Maybe these "gee whiz" Levin type ideas are more like generalizations that don't impact the teachings and proofs of natural selection.

 

Can you say that J. Levin's quote changes anything we teach in science today? I don't see how.

 

And that's the difference here. Most simply assign god some role in evolution without specifics, retaining the science of evolution and natural selection.

 

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.

 

No I haven't. Sounds interesting though...

[ParanoiA]

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?

 

You shouldn't. But you shouldn't teach 1, 2 or 3 until you know via the scientific method.

[Wormwood]

Originally Posted by ParanoiA

Well keep in mind what got me to this post. The point I've been failing to make is that Intelligent Design is a theory that challenges established science, whereas people who simply believe in god AND evolution are not challenging science.

 

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?

 

Yes, because that is the definition of ID in the weakest sense. Many people will take it further stating that evolution is a guided process, but the only true requisite is that you believe an intelligence is in any way, responsible for the way we and our universe manifested.

 

Personally, I see ID as a hypothesis which can't be tested, not a theory.

 

The proponents consider it like forensics. By that I mean they search for accumulated evidence after the fact and try to build their theory on that.

 

 

No, just a large chunk of it because it rejects the notion of natural selection. Natural selection is not reasonable to ID.

 

Why?

 

Because they believe human beings were the intentional product of God's plan. Some think that random natural selection takes away from this possibility.

 

Either that, or I don't fully appreciate the magnitude of ID. I'm open for education here.

 

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.

 

What you are describing is the anthropic principle, which is very similar to ID in some ways, but not the same. ID is a blanket term, and this seems to be intentional. ID ranges from deist, to Fundamental Christian. If you believe that the design of the universe is due to an intelligence,and this design included human beings in any way, then you believe in ID by definition.

 

 

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.

 

Again, this is the anthropic principle you are describing. I think you are actually referring to "Dicke's Coincidence" here which was the precursor to AP. Anyway, that is not the same as ID, merely supporting evidence.

[ParanoiA]

Yes, because that is the definition of ID in the weakest sense. Many people will take it further stating that evolution is a guided process, but the only true requisite is that you believe an intelligence is in any way, responsible for the way we and our universe manifested.

 

Then by this logic, all who believe in god also believe in ID. Then you have removed the partition from those who believe god is interfering continuously and those who believe he does not. This is a major point of contention because the OP established concern with those who believe the supernatural is still meddling with evolution.

 

I don't believe your definition of ID is correct within the context of political and scientific discussion. Rather it's misleading, lacks the required complexity to distinguish various beliefs who's dynamics are quite impacting. You're basically glossing over it all and dismissing it.

 

The proponents consider it like forensics. By that I mean they search for accumulated evidence after the fact and try to build their theory on that.

 

Isn't that what science is doing?

 

What you are describing is the anthropic principle, which is very similar to ID in some ways, but not the same. ID is a blanket term, and this seems to be intentional. ID ranges from deist, to Fundamental Christian. If you believe that the design of the universe is due to an intelligence,and this design included human beings in any way, then you believe in ID by definition.

 

Where is this definition? I abuse wikipedia and have not seen it defined so simply. With a definition this loose, what's the point? Now we need some term of reference to distinguish those who generally agree god had some part in our existence from those who theorize specifics and advocate a rejection of a process that has been proven by the scientific method. That's a huge difference. Is that maybe where creationism comes in?

[Wormwood]

Then by this logic, all who believe in god also believe in ID. Then you have removed the partition from those who believe god is interfering continuously and those who believe he does not. This is a major point of contention because the OP established concern with those who believe the supernatural is still meddling with evolution.

 

This is a distinction that is only made from your side of the debate though. I was saying that the actual definition is ambiguous and that it's my guess that this is intentional. Most of the people polled said they believed in ID because most of the people polled believe in God. I don't see a contradiction here except for the arbitrary distinction of if God still interferes or if he is simply the clock maker God of the deist.

 

I don't believe your definition of ID is correct within the context of political and scientific discussion. Rather it's misleading, lacks the required complexity to distinguish various beliefs who's dynamics are quite impacting. You're basically glossing over it all and dismissing it.

 

As for the scientific discussion I think I am right on as I have quoted the definition and am consistent with that definition. In the political area, I am being too ambiguous, but I think this is the point. I think this idea as a political ideology was designed to include as many people as possible, thereby lending more credibility to the idea through consensus.

 

 

Isn't that what science is doing?

In a sense, but science is only interested in certain materialistic evidence. For example, an atheist scientist looks at some data about anthropic principle. He is more likely to utilize the many universe theory that is pretty much the only way to sidestep design. A proponent of ID would look at the same evidence and see design. There is nothing different in the physical data, only the interpretations and implications. One side wants to see one outcome, and the other wants to see the other outcome. Both sides are therefore suspect, but worth a serious review.

 

 

Where is this definition? I abuse wikipedia and have not seen it defined so simply. With a definition this loose, what's the point? Now we need some term of reference to distinguish those who generally agree god had some part in our existence from those who theorize specifics and advocate a rejection of a process that has been proven by the scientific method. That's a huge difference. Is that maybe where creationism comes in?

 

Just do a "define:" in google. Wiki is the worst, most biased resource that exists, but it is convenient, I'll give you that.

 

Yes, the distinction you are making is with creationists who choose to ignore scientific facts. The problem is that you can not separate the two groups. This is what I have been saying about intentional ambiguity. One group (fundamentalist types) uses the facade of majority support for their minority view.

Most people do believe that the way our universe is right now, is due to some sort of design though this design played out over billions and billions of years. This is why ID is so popular, and this is also why broad generalizations about ID do nothing but further polarize the two sides. Once you start denouncing the group as a whole, everyone that thinks God had a hand in the universe starts getting defensive. Again, I don't think this is an accidental feature of the theory. All I am really trying to say is this: sure there are people who will use the blanket term of ID to justify any archaic bronze aged idea they might have about the universe, and indeed these people seem to be the loudest political proponents of ID, but that does not mean that this was the original intention of the idea, or even how most of it's supporters feel.

 

Check this out:

First of all, intelligent design is not what people often assume it is. For one thing, I.D. is not Biblical literalism. Unlike earlier generations of creationists—the so-called Young Earthers and scientific creationists—proponents of intelligent design do not believe that the universe was created in six days, that Earth is ten thousand years old, or that the fossil record was deposited during Noah’s flood. (Indeed, they shun the label “creationism” altogether.) Nor does I.D. flatly reject evolution: adherents freely admit that some evolutionary change occurred during the history of life on Earth. Although the movement is loosely allied with, and heavily funded by, various conservative Christian groups—and although I.D. plainly maintains that life was created—it is generally silent about the identity of the creator.

 

The movement’s main positive claim is that there are things in the world, most notably life, that cannot be accounted for by known natural causes and show features that, in any other context, we would attribute to intelligence.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/05/30/050530fa_fact

 

The issue seems to revolve around abiogenesis more than evolution. It does raise an interesting question about life evolving from non-life through random natural selection, but I don't see this as wildly unscientific or religiously extreme any more than the alternatives.

[Haezed]

As I understand it, no. You'd have to scoff at natural selection and insist, by faith alone, that god or the supernatural is guiding the process we interpret as evolution.

 

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.

 

But it's not since intelligent design rejects natural selection, implying that the hand of god is continuous, or at least interferes regularly rather than the proverbial snowball scenario where god just invents it, and from there it propagates on its own.

 

Again, many in the movement might but, and I'm agreeing with you, many of the people in that poll certainly did not.

 

Definitely semantics. I agree that the phrase "intelligent design" sounds quite simply like a belief in god, that created the universe. If god is truly omnipotent and responsible for the universe, then it stands to reason that kind of unfathomable intelligence would elude man's pathetic reasoning skills in contrast.

 

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.

 

But it's now the new label for a theory. Maybe we need look into "creationists" and see what the difference is, because there certainly is one.

 

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....

 

Maybe these "gee whiz" Levin type ideas are more like generalizations that don't impact the teachings and proofs of natural selection.

 

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.

 

Can you say that J. Levin's quote changes anything we teach in science today? I don't see how.

 

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.

 

And that's the difference here. Most simply assign god some role in evolution without specifics, retaining the science of evolution and natural selection.

 

Maybe ID comes in different forms?

[ParanoiA]

This is a distinction that is only made from your side of the debate though. I was saying that the actual definition is ambiguous and that it's my guess that this is intentional. Most of the people polled said they believed in ID because most of the people polled believe in God. I don't see a contradiction here except for the arbitrary distinction of if God still interferes or if he is simply the clock maker God of the deist.

 

Well it sounds like we're contending the same result but differing on the logistics. Again..back to the OP...the reason why this matters is because if I understand him right, the OP isn't concerned with the half of the ID'ers that believe in the clock maker version, rather is concerned about the half of ID'ers that believe he still interferes. That is not science, but they want it taught that way. I agree with the OP in that regard, but for various reasons I don't believe they are a true majority of any significance. We both seem to agree with this.

 

As for the scientific discussion I think I am right on as I have quoted the definition and am consistent with that definition. In the political area' date=' I am being too ambiguous, but I think this is the point. I think this idea as a political ideology was designed to include as many people as possible, thereby lending more credibility to the idea through consensus. [/quote']

 

You quoted the first definition and ignored the two wiki versions that came up as well...

 

Definitions of intelligent design on the Web:

 

"The idea that an intelligent designer played a role in some aspect of the evolution of life on earth, usually the origin of life itself. Generally, a thinly disguised version of scientific creationism."

highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072863129/student_view0/chapter5/key_terms.html

 

Intelligent Design (or ID) is a highly controversial claim holding that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent designer, rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

 

Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology is a controversial 1999 book by William A. Dembski in which he presents an argument in support of the conjecture of intelligent design. In it, Dembski defines the term "specified complexity", and argues that instances of it in nature cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution, but instead are consistent with the notion of intelligent design. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design_(book)

 

Not sure how Wiki is biased, but I'm sure you'll explain...

 

I can appreciate the intention of its ambiguity in the political process too. I made a similar point earlier in the thread, minus the intention, in that people who believe in god and evolution as it is scientifically proven, might be inclined to answer as "IDist" because they believe in god - not realizing that ID actually carries with it conclusions they may not agree with at all.

Like me labeling myself a conservative on a phone poll because "I conserve my personal resources", not knowing that I've just implied a ton of ideology that I don't agree with at all.

 

You're kind of arguing a similar direction except to say that it's intentionally that way, politically. Am I right?

 

Anyway, I really don't see how we can go any further until we nail down what ID really is and what it isn't. I thought I knew, now I'm not sure. It appears to be Wiki vs. McGraw.

[Haezed]

Again, this is the anthropic principle you are describing. I think you are actually referring to "Dicke's Coincidence" here which was the precursor to AP. Anyway, that is not the same as ID, merely supporting evidence.

 

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

[ParanoiA]

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

 

Yeah, and I didn't think the anthropic principal required a designer. But at this point, my head is spinning about all of it.

[Wormwood]

Well it sounds like we're contending the same result but differing on the logistics. Again..back to the OP...the reason why this matters is because if I understand him right, the OP isn't concerned with the half of the ID'ers that believe in the clock maker version, rather is concerned about the half of ID'ers that believe he still interferes. That is not science, but they want it taught that way. I agree with the OP in that regard, but for various reasons I don't believe they are a true majority of any significance. We both seem to agree with this.

 

I'm not sure I agree with your statement about IDers wanting it taught a certain way. I am sure there are some instances of this, but can you point to any known examples to clarify? As far as I know, proponents of ID want it taught to counter what they consider to be the nihilistic veiw of Darwinian evolution, but I have never heard of people wanting specific Christian doctrines taught.

 

 

You quoted the first definition and ignored the two wiki versions that came up as well...

 

I quoted the first two I believe, as those are usually the most common. I also gave you a definition from the New Yorker.

 

Definitions of intelligent design on the Web:

 

Intelligent Design (or ID) is a highly controversial claim holding that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent designer, rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

See What I mean? The first paragraph of the wiki ID page clearly says:

Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God.[

How can you reconcile this glaring inconsistency from the same source?

 

Not sure how Wiki is biased, but I'm sure you'll explain...

Seriously? It is faulted because anyone can just write whatever they want in wiki regardless of if it's true or not. I could go enter myself as the supreme ruler of the universe right now, but would that make it true?

 

I can appreciate the intention of its ambiguity in the political process too. I made a similar point earlier in the thread, minus the intention, in that people who believe in god and evolution as it is scientifically proven, might be inclined to answer as "IDist" because they believe in god - not realizing that ID actually carries with it conclusions they may not agree with at all.

Like me labeling myself a conservative on a phone poll because "I conserve my personal resources", not knowing that I've just implied a ton of ideology that I don't agree with at all.

 

You're kind of arguing a similar direction except to say that it's intentionally that way, politically. Am I right?

To an extent. I don't think it was the brilliant plan of social engineers or anything, but I do think that it was a strategically conceived theory and that's why secular people don't like it. It is general enough to be inclusive, but also to avoid being shown as unscientific or being debunked due to making too many specific claims and was designed specifically to counter the atheistic views of evolution.

 

Anyway, I really don't see how we can go any further until we nail down what ID really is and what it isn't. I thought I knew, now I'm not sure. It appears to be Wiki vs. McGraw.

 

Well it's also Wiki vs the New Yorker. I am going to go with the one that at least has professional writers and editors.

 

Apparently there seems to be 3 major issues with the content of the wiki: spelling errors, grammatical errors and factual errors. This page is here so that some down-to-earth solutions can be presented to all wiki authors so that we can avoid making errors in the future, and increase the quality of the content.

http://community.schemewiki.org/?csw-content-issues

 

From Wiki:

Important note: Wikipedia's articles are edited by volunteer Internet users. What they state is not the official point of view of the Wikimedia Foundation.

 

People answering on mailing-lists and other email services also are volunteers. They do not have the resources to research information or correct articles; thus, it is useless to send them scientific papers, bibliographies or questions on the content. Please use the article's "talk page" as described below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error

 

There is also a tendency towards bias in these factually incorrect entries. The section about ID was obviously written by a person who did not believe in it or understand it in an unbiased way. I'm not saying this because it disagrees with me, I'm saying it because it's obvious. There are so many factual errors in the first paragraph that there isn't much point in reading on. ID proponents don't say or imply that it is the God of Abraham that they are talking about; in fact they refuse to speculate about the nature of God within this theory. ID proponents don't all belong to the discovery institute. Etc. It's rehtoric. Just use any source other than Wiki and I'm sure you will see that the idea is actually quite general.

[Wormwood]

Yeah, and I didn't think the anthropic principal required a designer. But at this point, my head is spinning about all of it.

It doesn't, with the exception perhaps of strong anthropic principle. The universal constants from Dickes coincidence are just the building blocks for AP and don't imply a designer directly, but there is certainly that possibility in the periphery of this idea. That is why I said AP supports ID but is not synonymous. Certainly if AP were shown to be true, then that would lend credence to the belief that the universe was specifically designed for human life through ID. Do you agree?

[CDarwin]

I can't say that I've actually read that last page and a quarter of posts, but it seems that once again semantics has brought the discussion to a halt.

 

When I say ID at least, I'm referring to the political movement trumpeted by the Discovery Institute.

 

The confusion over what ID is just underscores my and Paranoid's point. People think that the idea that intelligence was involved in the universe is the same as Intelligent Design the political movement, but its not.

[PhDP]

ParanoiA,

 

You just need to understand the distinction between a direct intervention (interfering in the process) and an indirect intervention (having created the universe so evolution would be possible). Also, I never said any kind of direct intervention was impossible. However, we do see the effect of random mutations and predictions are based on this fact, so the view that God is required to understand evolution is just nonsense (that's the point made by IDists and creationists). Also, I'm not saying it's possible to rule out God's intervention (I don't know where you get that), but creationists are saying that, without a direct intervention of God, evolution (more specifically the evolution of complex structures) is impossible. Creationists want their view to be taught in school because they see it as a competing theory, for them, without God, the theory of evolution can't work. I'm only defending the view of science, if you find that as bad as creationism it's your right.

 

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 ?

 

It's not really untestable, it just doesn't fit data. If genomes were perfectly organized, if there was no traces of the "trial and error" process, then ID would be much more viable. But it's not the case.

 

What's very frustrating with IDists is the way they're trying to promote ID. Being open to new ideas, even crazy ones, is perhaps the greatest strength of science. IDists were unable to convince the scientific community that their idea was valid, even worst, they're incapable of producing even a single good article (and it should be noted that a great deal of bad ideas are published). As it failed on the scientific level, they've made ID a political movement. They have been quite successful and most Americans want at least some form of creationism to be taught in biology.

[Wormwood]

When I say ID at least, I'm referring to the political movement trumpeted by the Discovery Institute

Could you point to your specific problems? Are there instances of people teaching Christian doctrine or anything like that? As far as politics go, the movement is the same to some degree though they don't agree on specifics.

 

 

The confusion over what ID is just underscores my and Paranoid's point. People think that the idea that intelligence was involved in the universe is the same as Intelligent Design the political movement, but its not.

Could you please demonstrate how they are different? ID as a political movement is just pushing the idea that it is possible that these factors which we are indocrinated to think of as random, are in fact not random, but the design of something greater, and they want that to be taught in school along with the idea that the universe and life occured randomly. Is there something inherantly abhorant about this that I am missing?

[CDarwin]

Could you please demonstrate how they are different? ID as a political movement is just pushing the idea that it is possible that these factors which we are indocrinated to think of as random, are in fact not random, but the design of something greater, and they want that to be taught in school along with the idea that the universe and life occured randomly. Is there something inherantly abhorant about this that I am missing?

 

Yes and they've been pointed to all through this thread, and all over this forum, in fact.

[Wormwood]

Also, I noticed most of the problem revolves around the evil discovery institues view on this subject, so I went to their site to see what they say about it. This is what I found:

 

The theory holds that the universe and living things are so finely tuned and complex, they must have been designed by a supreme, intelligent force.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4054&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage

 

 

No creationism, no mention of the God of Abraham, no wacky religious rehtoric. I think you guys are the ones misunderstanding something here. If I am making an error in logic, please point it out.

[Wormwood]

Yes and they've been pointed to all through this thread, and all over this forum, in fact.

Could you be a little more obscure please? And don't bother to back up what you are saying, I'll just take your word for it.

[PhDP]

No creationism, no mention of the God of Abraham, no wacky religious rehtoric. I think you guys are the ones misunderstanding something here. If I am making an error in logic, please point it out.

 

It's right under your eyes, "they must have been designed by a supreme, intelligent force." They reject the notion that evolution can explain the evolution of life on earth without a designer. Of course, they won't say "God" because they want their stuff to be taught in school. That's creationism in disguised, it's not science and it doesn't fit our data.

[Wormwood]

It's right under your eyes, "they must have been designed by a supreme, intelligent force." They reject the notion that evolution can explain the evolution of life on earth without a designer. Of course, they won't say "God" because they want their stuff to be taught in school. That's creationism in disguised, it's not science and it doesn't fit our data.

 

That is not creationism in disguise. It is an alternative to the idea that everything occurs randomly which is the predominant view in science classes. As far as I know, the supporters of ID want it taught WITH evolution, and not instead of. Can you really say for certain that anything leading to the development of our species was ever truly random? We don't know if it was guided or not, hence it would be reasonable to teach an alternative to the set standard of randomization. Looking at something like abiogenesis, or endosymbiosis develpoments, the anthropic principle, etc the random explaination seems really weak.

[CDarwin]

Could you be a little more obscure please? And don't bother to back up what you are saying, I'll just take your word for it.

 

Read that as "I'm too tired right now." I'll be more substantive later I guess.

 

You should note however that the forum's official position is counter to your particular opinion and there are indeed a plethora of arguments plastered all over the site, in the FAQ no less. There's also the ever useful Talk Origins Index.

[PhDP]

That is not creationism in disguise. It is an alternative to the idea that everything occurs randomly which is the predominant view in science classes. As far as I know, the supporters of ID want it taught WITH evolution, and not instead of. Can you really say for certain that anything leading to the development of our species was ever truly random?

 

First of all, it's not "only" random, it's random + natural selection. Also, ID got no scientific support. Science is done by publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals, IDists are unable to do that. Can I say for certain that anything leading to the development of our species was ever truly random ? No, but your question is fallacious, I can't say for certain that you're not a vampire. Is it worth a mention in a science class.

 

We don't know if it was guided or not, hence it would be reasonable to teach an alternative to the set standard of randomization. Looking at something like abiogenesis, or endosymbiosis develpoments, the anthropic principle, etc the random explaination seems really weak.

 

Nonsense, why would it be taught in a SCIENCE class, if it's not a scientific alternative to evolution ?

 

And as I said earlier, we have plenty of proofs about random mutations, genomes are filled with evidences for the "trials and errors", and predictions are made using this. The problem is that nobody seem to care about reading a good book on evolution (like Futuyma's book), they just read a couple of things on a website and they feel like they know enough to criticise a legitimate and complex science like evolutionary biology.

[Haezed]

It's not really untestable, it just doesn't fit data. If genomes were perfectly organized, if there was no traces of the "trial and error" process, then ID would be much more viable. But it's not the case.

 

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.

[Haezed]

I quoted the first two I believe, as those are usually the most common. I also gave you a definition from the New Yorker.

 

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.

[PhDP]

Haezed,

 

You're right, sorry. I read carefully the post I quoted but I haven't read all your previous posts. Now I agree when you say it can't currently be tested.

 

However... "Intelligent Design" was coined by Thaxton (of the Discovery Institute) and means that the complexity of life can't be explained without referring to a designer, and I prefer to keep that definition, it avoids confusion.