How would you "prove" Intelligent Design ?

[Walsingham]

You would be about as empirical in your approach as someone out to measure the happiness of the universe. That's why I reject is.

 

Isn't it intelligent that electrons seek the shortest path back to a postive charge... by the heavens - I've proven God!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I follow your statement, but not insofaras it disproves my point. If that makes sense...

 

You philosophers correct me here:

 

The nature of emprical truth is that a statement has yet to be disproved. The statement 'All swans are black' is fine until someone produces a white swan. Equally, the statement that natural objects are so clever they must have been designed is fine until someone produces a not clever natural object. Of course, this is modified by the fact that exceptions are often explained by random chance. Our white swan may have fallen into some paint. However, if I randomly select 1,000 swans, and all of them are white then the black swan guy is in trouble.

 

This is the approach I am arguing for.

[Moose]

As far as I'm concerned having a proposition alone does not prove an argument. If it did all manner of crazy stuff would be science.

 

Science means knowledge, things that we know. Nobody knows there's a god. If they did there would be no such thing as faith.

 

A lot of the confusion comes in when theories are put forth in science AS science. For example, the big bang. Now nobody knows the big happened - nobody was there. We can however suggest the big bang is likely to have happened by observation of Newton's laws of gravity and motion. Strictly speaking, no the big bang is not science, but it is very strongly related and dependant on science.

 

It's this reason the big bang theory gets taught in school, where it is related to science - where as intelligent design isn't really based off any hard fact as far as I know.

 

Give me one reason I should consider intelligent design, based off some scientific fact that I already know.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Moose

[Walsingham]

You do not have to believe in ID. But if you want to call yourself a scientist you have to allow for it. It is true until proven otherwise. And yes, this does mean that there are plenty of crazy things not yet disproved out there.

 

However, if you refuse to allow for ID, simply because you have no 'proof' you are no better than the creationists. There is little 'proof' of evolution as the root of mankind. We can observe evolution at work now. We have fossils, but these in themselves are not proof. They are instances where evolutionary theory might have fallen but did not.

 

The problem, if problem there is with ID is that they have yet to formulate a falsifiable set of criteria for ID. This may regarded as weedy pigeon behaviour by the proponents and would not stand in scientific circles. But it does not make them scientifically wrong.

 

Metadigital is our resident philosphical genius. Ask him if I've got this right.

[Moose]

Science works off logical rational thought. This is why we're said to live in the age of "rationalism". Logic has strict rules for defining whether an argument is to be concluded true or not. To construct an argument you put forward a series of assumptions.

 

In this case your assumption would be "There is evidence of intelligence". The conclusion of your argument would be "There is a creator" - and you would hope that by construction of your argument this would work out true.

 

However that's where it all goes pear shape for intelligent design. Where is the argument? It's just an assumption. Nothing can be concluded and hence as a scientist I can not say there is a creator.

 

It is true I can't say there isn't a creator, but that does not prove that one exists.

 

From a theorists point of view, I can't even see how one would begin to take what we already know and tie it into intelligent design.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Moose

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You do not have to believe in ID. But if you want to call yourself a scientist you have to allow for it. It is true until proven otherwise. And yes, this does mean that there are plenty of crazy things not yet disproved out there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That dosnt seem to me to qualify it to be taught as science. In most cases of things yet to be proven they are based on established principles.

 

So far the only bit of "evidence" for ID is the complexity theory. However if a speices evolves different types of eyes (with some having no eyes , or non functional eyes) depending on how it has evolved I don't see eyes as being a point in favour of ID.

 

The Panda is something of an evolutionary mistake (and it's lucky it's cute).

No one would intelligently design a Panda , it's the sort of thing you might create after a night down the pub.

[Judge Hades]

The big bang happened because a time/space vehicle malfunctioned and went tothe beginning of time and it had to dump its fuel. Everything else since then has been came about by random chance.

[WITHTEETH]

You do not have to believe in ID. But if you want to call yourself a scientist you have to allow for it. It is true until proven otherwise. And yes, this does mean that there are plenty of crazy things not yet disproved out there.

 

However, if you refuse to allow for ID, simply because you have no 'proof' you are no better than the creationists. There is little 'proof' of evolution as the root of mankind. We can observe evolution at work now. We have fossils, but these in themselves are not proof. They are instances where evolutionary theory might have fallen but did not.

 

The problem, if problem there is with ID is that they have yet to formulate a falsifiable set of criteria for ID. This may regarded as weedy pigeon behaviour by the proponents and would not stand in scientific circles. But it does not make them scientifically wrong.

 

Metadigital is our resident philosphical genius. Ask him if I've got this right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As a scientist, you really don't have to think creationism is true. Just that it might be probable, Its always probable, even if proven not to be true. Because we do not know everything about everything, that is impossible. So we must gather all our knoweldge on this topic and make out best guess from there.

 

Science needs emperical evidence to judge by. If it does not then its at a dead end till it does have empirical evidence. Intelligent design gives no positive empirical proof, or even a method to how the designer mechanically works.

 

Now moose mentions logic. Science does use logic, but it has to be able to prove logic is not based on a false premise. Logic can be correct, and based on a false premise at the same time. All logic does is makes rational leaps of faith that makes sense. logic does not prove leaps.

 

A big problem that keeps coming back is repeated flase evidence against evolution that has already been proven false. examples - Irreducible complexity, second law of thermodynamics, adding new information to mutation. (if you want me to explain these ideas, and how they are false i will) These keep poping up in debates to try and stump the average joe who defends evolution. These ideas against evolution have already been proven false.

 

Last but not least, proving evolution wrong doesn't make ID right. Lets not make ID the theory that Evolution is wrong. I have nothing against ID, except when it confuses young teens, and how science really works. Science is our greatest rational tool to explain the natural world so far. If ID helps people understand their world, that great. Science is not just a means to explain, but also a career choice. If we teach our kids that ID is science, then this may show how incompetant we as scientists are.

Edited November 15, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

examples - Irreducible complexity, second law of thermodynamics, adding new information to mutation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wouldnt mind an example/explanation of the third one

[WITHTEETH]

examples - Irreducible complexity, second law of thermodynamics, adding new information to mutation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wouldnt mind an example/explanation of the third one

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well there is a general misconception with creationist because they say that a genetic mutation of new information isn't proven, and does not happen. its a kind of trick question. Basically new information is how we evolveld new frontal lobes or other working parts. it doesn't include virus' where they just became stronger, that could jsut be old information(genetic code repated to make it stronger). they want added NEW information not added OLD information added.

 

Heres a few examples of a genetic increase in information - Nylon Bug, Drosophila sperm axoneme, sodium channel gene SCN11A, Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey,evolution of a hominoid gene that supports high neurotransmitter flux. here are some examples of a genetic increase of information.

 

Many Creation websites do not even clearly define precisely what they mean by "evolution has no genetic increase of new information", they keep on setting the boundary farther and farther as scientists breakthrough their old standards of what information increase is.

[WITHTEETH]

Frankly, these debates hurt scientists. THey waste their time with unscientific methods. Once in awhile another scientist who believes in ID will come up with something good look irreducible complexity, but then it gets solved then thats it, until the next scientific debate of REAL science.

 

These public debates are consuming scientists. Just like how the presidential debates were consumed by gay marriage. Is it really that important that we should pick our president by if he hates gays or not? Theres a war going on!

 

We get so hung up on these small domestic issues that we forget to look at the big picture.

Edited November 15, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[Archmonarch]

It is true until proven otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Science does not follow the same restriction as a Western court of law. A theory is false, or at least unsubstantiated, until a large amount of empirical evidence suggests its validity. Even then, future knowledge and discoveries might render it obsolete, if not entirely wrong.

 

The nature of science is to grow and question. If it did not, then humanity would be stuck at our current stage of development indefinitely. Religion served its purpose, and it can be useful as a moral compass in some situations (if it interpreted figuratively in terms of modern times) but to ascribe solely to its philosophy is to invite destruction. Unless progress is made, everything naturally degrades.

[~Di]

...Fundamentalists do not, contrary to popular belief, anecdoatal evidence, and constant claims to the contrary, have a choke-hold on power in this country.  It sounds good to say they do, and I'm sure someone can come up with a long list of isolated events and/or news items that "proves" religious fundamentalists run the country.

 

Er... well, fundamentalists currently control the White House and the House of Representatives, and hold a rather large chunk of the Senate, which contains more fundamentalists than moderates at the moment. It has been widely touted by the fundamentalists themselves that they are personally responsible for the re-election of Bush in 2004, and with the Roberts/Alito nominations, it looks like fundamentalists will now run the highest court in the land as well. Nearly every single congress person and senator, republican and democrat alike, claims to be either Catholic or Christian. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that Christians, particularly fundamentalist Christians, DO indeed run the country.

 

Someone on this board speculated on beating Christians to death for coming to his door handing out religious tracts.  I've had someone shoot at me with the intent to kill me.  I think complaining about the fundamentalist handing out bibles at the University is rather petty by comparison.

 

Atheists have been blacklisted, publicly villified by official governmental hearings (McCarthy ring a bell? And of course, calling someone a "godless commie" is still considered one of the worst insults on earth!). The head of the national Atheist party and her family was murdered and buried in the Texas desert. Clearly being an Atheist has its drawbacks. Jews have been persecuted around the world for centuries; holocaust, anyone? Muslims hate Christians, Christians hate Muslims, Jews hate everyone, and everyone hates Atheists. And since we've already established in provable fashion (see my comments above, and count the Christians and/or evangelicals in power positions in the current government!) I frankly do not comprehend the "we are so persecuted" chant by Christians in this country at this point in time.

 

So I must disagree respectfully, Eldar, although I still like you. A lot.

Edited November 15, 2005 by ~Di

[Hurlshort]

When I watch MTV, I don't get the feeling that fundamentalist Christians are in control of anything. I just see a lot of T & A.

 

I also disagree that calling someone a Godless commie is still an insult. Times have changed since the 50's, and in many ways for the good. There's an atheist guy running around right now trying to get God off currency and public buildings, and no one has shot him yet.

[taks]

You do not have to believe in ID. But if you want to call yourself a scientist you have to allow for it. It is true until proven otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that's not true... provability is not the issue walsingham, testability is the issue. a scientist can consider untestable hypotheses only as philosophical considerations, but not scientific ones. ID is not testable therefore not considered by science.

 

taks

[taks]

When i "refered" to the bible though, i was refering to where i got my belief, not using it as "evidence".

gotcha.

 

and okay, if evidence, means something testable, then evidence is still not needed for my faith.

agreed. by definition, faith is, well, faith. sort of an inborn feeling i suppose. i do not have it (for this particular issue), so i cannot understand the actual implications.

 

In this case, i think we agree that ID cannot be scientific.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

agreed, and i've made this very clear in my discussions.

 

taks

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I also disagree that calling someone a Godless commie is still an insult.  Times have changed since the 50's, and in many ways for the good.  There's an atheist guy running around right now trying to get God off currency and public buildings, and no one has shot him yet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd be insulted if someone called me a commie.

 

They still routinely murder abortion doctors and nurses though don't they.

 

Your part right though although it would depend on which part of America it was occuring in I suspect.

[~Di]

When I watch MTV, I don't get the feeling that fundamentalist Christians are in control of anything.  I just see a lot of T & A. 

 

Not for lack of trying, considering the number of boycotts, write-in campaigns and even congressional "hearings" devoted to the deterioration of our cherished youth by that godless sexual stuff. Heck, even Hillary Clinton... a fine Christian, though hardly a right-wing whacko... is willing to censor Grand Theft Auto, among other stuff. But I digress.

 

I also disagree that calling someone a Godless commie is still an insult.  Times have changed since the 50's, and in many ways for the good.  There's an atheist guy running around right now trying to get God off currency and public buildings, and no one has shot him yet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Things have indeed changed since the 50's (which, by the way, is when congress decided to put God on currency, in public buildings, and stuffed God into our Pledge of Alligiance to boot... thank you, Mr. McCarthy!). However, the head of the Atheist party was murdered in the 1990's, not the 1950's, and the fellow who is trying to get God off currency and out of the pledge is rather routinely villified by right-wing media like old Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and their ilk. He may yet be shot, so keep the faith!

 

My point was that I find it ludicrous for Christians to whine that they are persecuted in this country when it is categorically proveable that they are the most powerful majority here in the US of A, and as such are in charge of running the place from the White House on down.

 

I have no problems with that per se, having been raised a good Southern Baptist myself. I do, however, have a problem when religion is inserted into my child's science class, into government, and into the judiciary. Intelligent Design should most certainly be taught and discussed by those who believe it; but it should be taught and discussed in religious institutions, not in public schools.

[Akhan225]

Intelligent Design should most certainly be taught and discussed by those who believe it; but it should be taught and discussed in religious institutions, not in public schools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bulls-eye. Believe what you want to believe, but dont force it upon others. What ever happened to Seperation of Church and State?

[Cantousent]

I don't think Christians are vilified, but I believe fundamentalists have a small voice. What is a Christian fundamentalist?

 

As tragic as the murdered atheist is, I fail to see how that proves that the country is run by fundamentalists.

 

However, before we continue down that slippery slope (more of a sheer cliff), I insist that we establish what a "fundamentalist" is. After all, I have had what I would consider true "fundamentalists" call me a satanist based on my Catholicism. That pretty much puts me outside of the fundamentalist camp. Furthermore, Kerry and quite a few of the Democrats in the country are Catholics, and they would probably scratch their heads at the charge of radical "fundamentalism." Really, if you put Catholics and fundamentalists in the same group, you are clearly going to put the control of government in fundamentalist hands.

 

Now, as to the whole "control" issue. When you're hunted down and killed for speaking against Christians and Christianity, I'll give a little more thought to your charge, but I don't see it that way right now.

 

When I spoke concerning the "fundamentalists," I did so as an outsider. I believe the single largest religious group represented in our government is Roman Catholic. A lot of them make just as much fun of fundamentalists as you do. So, I wasn't "whining" about my lot as a Christian. Hell, Catholics certainly aren't under-represented.

[Child of Flame]

Heck, I make fun of fundamentalists as well as attending church with them!

[Laozi]

To me fundamentalist christians believe the bible to be exactly God's word. That women experience pain during childbirth because Eve took the apple from the tree and gave it Adam. That the the world is roughly 12,000 years old. That the bible condemns homosexuality, which it doesn't. Things like this.

 

The problem is when you take these quaint traditions, and superstitions and try and apply them to everyone else under the sun. I'm really feel sorry that same-sex marriage and evolution make mid-westerners feel icky, but those are the breaks. I don't particuliarly like that schools teach sex-education, but I understand that some parents, for whatever reason, feel like it needs to be taught there so you just let it go.

[Walsingham]

Moose and taks, I'm glad someone's readng my stuff, but if you re-examine

 

"The problem, if problem there is with ID is that they have yet to formulate a falsifiable set of criteria for ID. This may regarded as weedy pigeon behaviour by the proponents and would not stand in scientific circles. But it does not make them scientifically wrong."

 

You'll see I do not actually back ID because while it has yet to be disproved, it is very weak. It is weak because it has no testable points. It is like Freud's theories. He says "Either you agree you want your mother, or you are suppressing it." [Thinks: I wonder what Freud's mother had to say about this. Must have made great conversation at Christmas.]

 

What I'm interested in here is whether we can concoct a workable testable hypothesis on behalf of the ID people. If we do create a good one then we can set about demolishing it. But until we do, we are simply relying on faith to tell us they are wrong. And if we are relying on faith alone then I think we could get off our high horses.

 

Finally, never mind pandas. Have you seen a platypus?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus

[kirottu]

Finally, never mind pandas. Have you seen a platypus?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah platypus, the proof that god does have sense of humour.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I was refering to the Panda's traits rather than appearence. As I understand it despite being odd the platypus does rather well.

 

On the other hand with a panda you have.

 

1. A vegertarian bear

2. A very specialised diet

3. Mothers commonly give birth to twins but choose which baby lives and which dies (not a particularly effective survival mechanism).

4. Young that are born before they are fully formed (which leads to the above). They can't even go to the toilet for months without being "stimulated".

 

(who says that trip to oolang was a waste :D).

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You'll see I do not actually back ID because while it has yet to be disproved, it is very weak. It is weak because it has no testable points. It is like Freud's theories. He says "Either you agree you want your mother, or you are suppressing it." [Thinks: I wonder what Freud's mother had to say about this. Must have made great conversation at Christmas.]

 

What I'm interested in here is whether we can concoct a workable testable hypothesis on behalf of the ID people. If we do create a good one then we can set about demolishing it. But until we do, we are simply relying on faith to tell us they are wrong. And if we are relying on faith alone then I think we could get off our high horses.

 

Finally, never mind pandas. Have you seen a platypus?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Freud also said that religion was born of the desire of a need for a "father" figure. Although you could expand that to parental figure. The reason gods are both benevolent and vengeful is that the psyche could not cope with a completely benevolent "parent"

 

I think there is a lot of truth in that. As a child you look to your parents for comfort, but as an adult there is no one to look to unless you create them.

I could go on and say lots of controversial things but I wont :D You are also conditioned to obey the parent (and are rewarded when you do so) and are punished when you do not. Religious figures (deities) will also invariably have traits that would be considered as good in a particular society (as well as the inevitable outcast(s) on whom you blame all the bad stuff).

 

I was wondering that too, hence the thread title. Although after much reading I still havnt seen anything that could be regarded as proof , or even evidence.