If Intelligent design is right, then what?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by James R, Jun 27, 2003.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Let's assume for a moment that "Intelligent Design" is accepted as a legitimate scientific theory.

    Suppose one of the claims of the ID people is correct - for example, different species are a product of intelligent design, but subspecies can be explained by normal Darwinism alone. My question to the supporters of ID is:

    Where do we go from there?

    We admit that there is a supernatural cause involved in the creation of species. So, we need to alter the methodology of science at its most basic level. Up to now, science has never allowed supernatural causes as explanations of phenomena, but now we're going to allow those types of explanations. So, what's the next step in the investigation?

    "How were species created?"
    "ID did it."
    "How?"
    ...

    A supernatural cause need not follow any rules, so normal methods of scientific investigation won't help us answer the "how" question here. I ask fans of ID: what do we do now? Are we forced to drop the problem on the assumption that we can't know anything more, or is there some other path we can follow? How should the scientific methodology be altered if ID is true?

    It seems to me that there would be no alternative but to occasionally acknowledge the God of ID (a non-theological God, of course, because ID is a non-religious theory, right?) every now and then when looking at species ... but maybe I'm wrong.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    You are basing this question on the premise of the ID "Creator" being supernatural, when that would not be a foregone conclusion if ID was proven correct, or theorized.

    There are Summerian writings which credit the human race to a creator: The Annunaki. A very advanced, very powerful, but very PHYSICAL alien race. I'm not saying that this is what happened, so don't jump on me. I'm just saying that the ID claims aren't just being made by theists.

    On a quick side note, the most popular non-theist ID group, called "Raliens" (Spelling?) believes the exact same thing that theistic ID people believe. But the theists (Who, by the way, claim thier "Theory" is based on science, not religion) flat-out reject the claim of the Raliens, when the only difference is WHO is doing the designing. Hmm...not influenced by relgious dogmas, eh? Yeah, and I'm not a porn addict.

    ....um....JD
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    james R

    I believe you are misreading the nature of ID. It points towards a Creator (the "Intelligence behind the design"), but changes nothing about the nature of what was created. Scienctific enquiry would still be just as useful, just as productive, and just as necessary. It's a contrived fallacy that one 'because of' replaces another.

    An example:
    Say the ID theory 'Intelligence' = A, and it's 'creation' = Z

    Science has shown that X+Y = Z,
    ID says A is the cause that Z = X+Y
    Science bristles its feathers, thinks a bit, and states: X*Y =Z^2 !
    ID says A is the cause that Z^2 = X*Y
    Science does some more research and after 200 years emphatically asserts that: B(C+D)/E =Z !!
    ID just shrugs and says: A is the cause of everything from B to Y that might = Z, since A is the cause of Z.

    The conclusion is that however complex and mysterious the description of Z becomes, the longer this side of the equation becomes, but it changes nothing about A being the creator. And if we go on the premise that ID has become accepted: the more we will stand in awe of the Intelligence that created it all.

    Of course, Science never could quite prove that anything = A...
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2003
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    <b>JDawg</b>:

    <i>You are basing this question on the premise of the ID "Creator" being supernatural, when that would not be a foregone conclusion if ID was proven correct, or theorized.</i>

    Well, if ID is not due to a supernatural cause, then normal methods of science will presumably eventually uncover natural causes of phenomena. Science is doing that pretty well so far. Are you saying that there's no need for a new ID paradigm, then?


    <b>Jenyar</b>:

    You appear to be saying that ID is not a scientific concept. ID claims there is an A who created everything, but you admit that we can never hope to prove the existence of A using science.

    Is ID just another religion, then?
     
  8. drnihili Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    191
    James R,

    Excellent thread. You've hit upon the real reason that ID doesn't work. ID is not sufficiently explanatory. We can debate evidence for ID til the cows come home. But even if the designer herself were to appear before us and say, "yeah, I did all that", it wouldn't explain anything. We would still want to know how. So long as that is the question we are interested in, ID can have nothing to offer, even if it is true. It simply doesn't have the proper structure to be a scientific theory.

    At most ID could point us to a new method for discovering truth - ask the designer, or perhaps seek a vision. But once that method becomes employed under the bounds of rationality, it will become science. Once it does that, ID is gone again.

    Imagine that the proper method of determining how the designer created life is to seek a vision. Well, no we need some way of determining which visions are correct and which are mere illusions. THe visions will have to be repeatable, or they will be rejected. Also, we'll have the work of assembling the data obtained from visions into overarching theories. Vision seeking becomes just another means of obtaining data, much the same as the telescope and microscope. With time we might become equally adept at them. But once we do so, then we have no more need of ID in the theory, it becomes extraneous. The theory can proceed directly to the discovered causes.

    As an analogy think about asking the question "what made that last pitch curve?" One might initially respond by saying "that's what the pitcher wanted it to do." But once you understand how a curve ball is thrown, what finger placement makes a ball curve, then you can drop the pitcher's intention out of the explanation. Once you go further and understand the physics of curve balls, you can drop the pitcher out of the explanation and work just with forces. The greater your understanding of the phenomenon, the less need there is for ID. (Substitute a football (yankee=soccer) kicked with a curved trajectory if you prefer, mutatis mutandis.)

    ID is at best a stopgap position within the search for explanations, perhaps best seen as an acronym for "I Dunno".
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    The short answer

    As with most religious conundra, the problem only goes away when you cease asking the question.

    I think one of the first things that would happen would be a drastic revision of law as people speculated on the why of intelligent design. Any solution would probably be precluded by a major war between the primary religious forces, and the Buddhists in Tibet and hiding in the Hindu Kush would be the only religious folk to survive unscathed.

    Intelligent design requires a designer. True, there exists a metaphysical construct whereby the designer is not god, but it doesn't change the fact that God exists, so to speak.

    Quite honestly, I think the more important scientific discussions would be put aside while everyone fought over God.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,621
    James,

    If ID is right then the chase to find out the designer would begin.
    From aliens to any xyz who claims that he knows the designer personally but would not reveal his the identity etc. Even then Science would not be ready to accept God as the designer for the reasons you have already mentioned. Alien stuff would be more dearer&nearer to it. For theists ID is the effect and the cause is God.

    Better science get a solid material evidence first that the watchmaker is not blind. Then see the fun.
     
  11. MarcAC Curious Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,042
    Who or what is I.D.?
    Supernatural due to our incomplete understanding of it.
    2500 Yrs ago lightening was supernatural. We understand it's basic nature now, but that does not preclude the explanation; "I.D. did it". We have a basic idea of how it was done from our perspective, but I.D. still did it.
    When I.D. is introduced how is relevant, but why should also become equally relevant, if not moreso. Science can answer the how, but with I.D. there must be a why; current science can't answer that.
    Not necessarily, from our 'normal methods of scientific investigation' we have discovered a few possible rules of the 'how'.
    Galileo supported I.D., he made quite a significant contribution to scienctific knowledge, as do many other scientists. Jenyar hit the nail on the head.
    It shouldn't. Science will answer the how up to the point where I.D. allows it to. The more important question of why needs another approach. That is where you try to discover who I.D. is, and that is where the spiritual approach is useful.
    I'd think that I.D. would be responsible for every aspect of the how. Religion as defined will become prominent within any I.D. theory. Religion seeks to answer why I.D. did what I.D. did. If it is indeed I.D.... there must be a why. right?
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2003
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    MarcAC:

    Let's be clear here. Supporters of ID claim that ID is a legitimate <b>scientific</b> theory, as opposed to a religious point of view. In fact, the ID people are very careful to disavow any direct connection with religious beliefs, at least in their published works.

    Science has never been in the business of answering "why" questions; it only really answers the "how" questions. If you want it to start answering "why" questions, then science itself needs to change significantly. I'm asking how it could do that here.

    <i>2500 Yrs ago lightening was supernatural.</i>

    No. Lightning has always been recognised as a natural phenomenon. The causes might have been ascribed to Gods, but the lightning itself is subject to object analysis based on evidence. Everybody can see lightning and its effects. Nobody can agree on what God is like.

    <i>We have a basic idea of how it was done from our perspective, but I.D. still did it.</i>

    How do you know? Isn't that simply a statement of faith, rather than science?

    <i>Galileo supported I.D., he made quite a significant contribution to scienctific knowledge, as do many other scientists.</i>

    Galileo's contributions to science never relied on a supernatural creator.

    <i>Science will answer the how up to the point where I.D. allows it to. The more important question of why needs another approach. That is where you try to discover who I.D. is, and that is where the spiritual approach is useful.</i>

    So you admit that ID is not scientific. Where science stops, ID begins. That is not the usual claim of the ID people.
     
  13. MarcAC Curious Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,042
    It is possible to have no religious views and still support I.D., however, the question why I.D. did it will always surface and also who is I.D.; it is unavoidable. Intelligence is attributed to reason and action with a purpose right? I'm a Christian and personally don't consider myself religious.
    I doubt it can. The scientific method has some basis in the human desire to be accepted within a social structure; in other words to be 'cool' you have to be accepted by the 'cool crowd'. This partially explains the nature of peer review - my view. Many seem to present science as something beyond the subjective experience [objective?] but without the subjective experiences there is nothing objective. The scientific method doesn't need to change, people need to see science for what it truly is, just another religious face, another belief system conjured up by the human mind. When we see that science is essentially a personal belief system shared by many, maybe it will be able to handle I.D.
    I disagree. Based on this and what you typed below it would seem you think nothing is supernatural then, or our definitions differ. Frankly I don't think it matters much what one thinks is natural or supernatural - supernatural can only be called beyond current understanding and explanation - some people can call dark matter or dark energy supernatural.
    Is there anything in this universe that everyone can agree on? I don't think so. There are differing theories nad hypothesese as to what the mechanism of lightening production in the natural world is.
    Because I see evidence of purpose within the structure of the universe; everything works together, I am alive. You might look at the same thing and see nothing. Same with that Mars Rock ALH84OO1 or something like that. However, the difference between science and faith is not much, frankly I can't see the difference. Science is just the expression of a body of people agreed in faith - faith in their 'facts'.
    I doubt you are in a position to say that. Here's one purported quote from Galileo which I read quite some time ago and cannot forget - it was in a space.com article about a group of Christian Astronomers called CASE - "I do not think that God has granted us the gift of knowledge and intellect for us to forego their use"... or something to that effect. Me sitting and typing here may rely on a supernatural creator.
    Hopefully my position is a bit clearer. For me I.D. is scientific up to the point where the individual [who comprise the scientific community] refuses to accept it as such.

    The religious scientist once wrote, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." That's a link to the space.com article.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2003
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    MarcAC:

    <i>It is possible to have no religious views and still support I.D....</i>

    Yes, it is, but in fact, by far the majority of public supporters of ID are deeply religious. Most will not accept, for example, that intelligent design of human beings could be due to extraterrestrial intelligence rather than to a God.

    <i>The scientific method has some basis in the human desire to be accepted within a social structure; in other words to be 'cool' you have to be accepted by the 'cool crowd'. This partially explains the nature of peer review - my view.</i>

    Yes, science is a social enterprise. That is unavoidable, since scientists are also human beings. But that is not <b>all</b> it is.

    <i>The scientific method doesn't need to change, people need to see science for what it truly is, just another religious face, another belief system conjured up by the human mind.</i>

    I invite you to try jumping off a building. If you believe hard enough, I guess gravity won't pull you down.

    Do you see how silly this kind of argument is?

    <i>Is there anything in this universe that everyone can agree on? I don't think so.</i>

    There are many things on which every sane person agrees. Can't you think of any? I invite you again to consider my suggested experiment with gravity.

    <i>the difference between science and faith is not much, frankly I can't see the difference. Science is just the expression of a body of people agreed in faith - faith in their 'facts'.</i>

    Science is testable. Anybody can measure the speed of light, and they will find the same value. Anybody can drop objects from buildings and they will always fall down. There is no faith involved - just an observed regularity to the universe.

    <i>I doubt you are in a position to say that.</i>

    Actually, I have researched Galileo fairly extensively.

    <i>Here's one purported quote from Galileo which I read quite some time ago and cannot forget - it was in a space.com article about a group of Christian Astronomers called CASE - "I do not think that God has granted us the gift of knowledge and intellect for us to forego their use"</i>

    Yes, Galileo believed in God. But God appears nowhere in his justifications for his scientific theories. That was my point.

    <i>For me I.D. is scientific up to the point where the individual [who comprise the scientific community] refuses to accept it as such.</i>

    In other words, to see ID you first have to believe in it. It is a circular concept. Compare gravity again.
     
  15. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    While certainly there is an amount of ‘peer pressure’ the one sure way to become ‘cool’ in the field of science and additionally make sure that your name is remembered forever in the history books is to reveal something new or completely overturn what is commonly accepted. If you list the top ten scientists that come to mind I will bet that most, if not all, of them were responsible for overturning the status quo.

    ~Raithere
     
  16. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I'm still missing out on what makes people think I.D. would have to be supernatural. What, where, how does one come to the conclusion that human existance due to ID= Supernatural intervention? This is where the IDologists (Like that one? I just made it up.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) show their true colors, because to claim ID is supernatural is to grab your religious roots and wave them for everyone to see.

    Some scientists have already created an equation which tells us the probability of intelligent civilizations living in our galaxy. The Green Bank Formula goes as such:

    N = R+f(p)n(e)f(1)f(i)f(e)L

    This equation tells us how many planets are either trying to make contact or are waiting for us to make contact (That is, of course, on the assumption that they haven't already, or haven't played a part in our existance) with them. Also, each figure has been given two values; an admissable minimum based on what they knew about the unverse in the 60's when the formula was created, and an absolute minimum value.

    Using the lowest possible figure for each value, we come up with N = 40. 40 planets in the Milky Way are intelligent. Using the admissable minimum value, we get...

    N = 50, 000, 000. So that means, in our galaxy ALONE there could be 50 MILLION planets at our level of intelligence or beyond. (Or less, but the intelligence is based on ours, so you couldn't get much lower without slipping from the "intelligent" column)

    That said, why is it impossible for people to believe that ID would be the work of an extra-terrestrial, physical race rather than some supernatural being?
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    JDawg:

    Simple. There's no evidence of alien intervention on Earth. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but given our present state of knowledge there's no reason to invoke ID by aliens (or by a supernatural being).
     
  18. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    Bullpuckie - the number employed for f(i) is pure speculation. The equation tells us nothing beyond the implications of a set of assumptions. Sagan's results will differ markedly from Mayr's.
     
  19. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    The main problem with this is that it doesn't answer anything, it just pushes the question further back. If ET created us who/what created ET ?

    ~Raithere
     
  20. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,621
    True but C.Darwin and R.Dawkins would be blaming each other somewhere else..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    No one is saying it will, and to use "It has to answer all the questions" as a prerequisite for accepting something, then you're out of luck, homie. If we were to find out today that aliens created us, it still wouldn't answer who created them. But at least we'd know who created us.

    There's nothing wrong with pushing the question back. That's how it works. No one answer is going to answer all the questions, dude. First, we find out how we got here. Next, we find out how what put us here got here. So on and so forth.
     
  22. MarcAC Curious Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,042
    Totally respect your point and agree. We are all thought crazy at first. Look at I.D., Black Holes, and this guy has come up with the idea of Dark Galaxies which we can't see which may account for some of the universal matter yet accounted for - even he thinks the idea is crazy - or so he says in public.
     
  23. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    No, Dawg, it doesn’t answer the question, namely, “How did life originate.”
    The answer, “Aliens”, is equivalent to “life originates from life”.

    We already knew that. We’re going after the origin of life.

    ~Raithere
     

Share This Page