Question for believers in ID.

ID isn't religious? Do explain.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Note that you are asking this question from within a specific discussion thread on ID, which is exactly the place for extended involvement in debate on the topic.

It turns out that all things have beginnings, and even William Lane Craig got this far, but, unfortunately, for him, this includes beings and Beings, and so there is no 'eternal' for them. Likewise, the universe had a beginning and that which is the basis of the universe had a beginning and it still is the universe, one and the same with it, for not anything other could have entered into it. The one cause is still unfolding, for all is but one big event in operation, its essence continuing but changing form. That the universe is expanding show that it cannot be infinite in extent, not can anything, and the universe is of finite duration into the past, coming from a state which could not itself be eternal, or else it would have stayed as it was. All is in the link provided. That infinities and eternities cannot be is a part of the default state of no choice for existence in the form of the universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

'ID' is a substitute word for 'irreducible complexity', which was a substitute word for 'God', both meaning 'God' as Creator, making for the misnomer of 'Creation Science', too.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And not only that, but as very complex composites, as beings, their apex reached by evolution occurs way, way later on, and not even near any early assemblies, such as the simpler composites of molecules and atoms that are much closer to the First, but are still not primary. All the more, then, for some higher evolved form of life, and a zillion times more for any eventual highest being. So, supposing any kind of being as First is to look in the most completely wrong direction that it is possible to look in.

 

No, I understand perfectly well that their argument demands that God not be subject to the same laws they apply to everything else. That's not what's at issue here. They're trying to use science and logic to "show" that universe must be created. A favorite trope of the IDer is "something cannot come from nothing." Following this line of logic, then their own God must also require a creator, because God is something. Whether or not they want to include God in that "something" is irrelevant, because God would be be something by definition.

They're basically trying to say that 1+1=2, but 1+2=/=3 because 3 is magically exempt. While I'm sure this explanation works fine in church, it doesn't fly in science.

Do you follow now? I can do it slower next time, or perhaps use larger font?

 

There's nothing to explain. ID is pseudoscientific religious propaganda founded for the purposes of discrediting science through lies and infiltrating the education system via political means, rather than academic.

 

I recall that the Judge's ruling and explanation in the Dover 'Creation Science' case was very insightful, and would do well to appear in SciForums.

 

Alan Watts - The universe as one big event

[video=youtube;Lj2CyIFKZ7w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj2CyIFKZ7w[/video]

Alan Watts was not the basis for my explanation of everything, but it resonates with it.

 

Comments on the video, from another forum, the first one by me, which gives an insight ‘intro’ into the finding of the Beginning of all:

Me:

Watts is right on, and this leads on to the Theory of Everything, which anyone can claim, as it is evident. There is a continuity, an unfoldment from the beginning of the universe, which was a change in form, true, but from ‘before’, and the essence continues on in it, for its not like anything else could have poked its nose in.

Everything that happens is the ‘effect’ of the beginning. Its expression can’t happen all at once, for the speed of light is finite. Events ‘lead’ to other events, yes, though not as ‘cause’ but because that’s what has to happen. It’s kind of like Einsteins’ block universe image if one wants to try to visualize it all at once.

So, the fundamental (first) basis of the universe had to be a simple, continuous function, with no breaks or parts, for those would have to precede. So called ‘parts’ compiling into complexities, such as atoms, molecules, and beings have to come later, not first, which is why the base existent has to be simple and continuous, and of a symmetry, as nature is of a balance of opposites, which as complimentary, as Watts demonstrates, can only work together, again, this ever reflecting the unity.

So, we ask ourselves “What it is that everything in the universe has in common?”

To help, we ‘render’ it as what’s really ‘out there’, so we can get out of its re-presentation within out brains.

The answer is ‘waves’, which almost knocks us over, for they are ubiquitous in the universe. We have accomplished what seemed to be the impossible task of finding the needle in the very large haystack of the universe. Oh, it would have been easy to ‘see’ the pinhead of the supposed singularity, as it was, before the growing, but it changed into all that is now around as the cosmos.

The needle weaves the fabric of the universe with the thread of a primal wave, and a wave is a simple continuous function.

Although we are as tourists along for the ride, as actors in a scripted play, it still seems novel, and we can ‘perform’, plus, it can be fun, and so there is still something to be gotten out of it.

Internally, it is a ‘second story’, true, for the states making up the ‘first story’ beneath are not apparent to the felt states of being; however, although it may be the whole story for some people, others can be informed by science about the substrate beneath. And, of course, it is the ‘wave’ that is the basement.

Pandora’s box of truths ever opens wider, no matter who tries to keep a lid on it, although some may see it as Dennet’s universal acid that eats away all their folklore and superstitions.


Jack:

An analogy I like to use is that in Western thought, reality is like a big sphere containing millions of tiny balls. Each ball represents a person or event. All are separate but frequently bounce into each other (interactions, cause and effect, etc.). In Eastern thought the sphere contains a gelatinous goo, everything is a part of everything else, there is nothing that is separate and distinct from anything else.


Me:

Some of the whirlpools, such as humans and creatures, are consolidated and longer lasting, albeit not separate and distinct in the long run or overall in their basis, but localized enough to operate or at least feel that they do in the one big event.


Grandpa:

It may even be more effective to emphasize differences, though, provided such emphasis doesn't lead to what happened to the Jews in Germany, or similar events elsewhere. I guess it comes down to what is best for you.


Me:

Yet all is what it is and will be, which already includes the present and future moves, pro and con, enlightenment and not, unity or separation.

There is both separation and wholeness at the same time, as complementary. That the universe is this way is reflected in that some parts of the brain take in the whole, at once, in parallel, and other parts of the brain zoom in on the details, sequentially. These alternations, like yin and yang receding each into the other, make for a rounded life.

 

Good call, SciWriter. Just pulling decision bullet-points from the Wiki page:

• For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)
  
• A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)
  
• The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
  
• The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)
  
• Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. .... an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching. .... Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion. (footnote 7 on page 46)
  
• After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64)
  
• [T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)
  
• ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)
  
• Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)
  

And the conclusion:

• The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]
  
• The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Click here for the 139-page decision in its entirety at Wikisource.

 

You're still going with a fallacious interpretation of their stance, as I have already noted earlier.

And what evidence can you present that this is indeed the case?

Can you present religious documents that state things to the effect of "We, the religious, have every intention to discredit science through lies and to infiltrate the education system via political means, rather than academic"?

 

No, I'm not. I've just explained to you exactly what the argument of ID is. What did I get wrong?

I know you think you're being cute and clever here, but yes, I can present exactly that.

This is the "Wedge Document," a leaked internal memo from the Discovery Institute outlining its plan to subvert the sciences and "defeat materialism" through what it called the "Wedge" strategy. I doubt you'll read the actual .pdf, but maybe you'll skim its Wiki page.

Is it really asking too much that you have any clue what you're talking about, Wynn?

 

What is the clue, Wynn?

And thanks for the 'Superman' picture.

 

The ID reasoning is "Everything has a source, except God."

The ID reasoning is not "Everything has a source."


There is a legal principle, exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis - "the exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted."

Some rules or arguments are stated in this form with a list of exceptions. And those exceptions aren't somehow artificial or magical add-ons.
Many mundane laws (such as those concerning traffic, financial transactions etc.) are in this form of
exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. Ie. "It is permitted to do x, except when y."

From what I've seen, that document does not say "We, the religious, have every intention to discredit science through lies and to infiltrate the education system via political means, rather than academic."

 

And that's exactly what I said:

So I have already demonstrated my awareness of what their argument is. The problem is that their argument is unscientific, yet they attempt to "prove" God through science. As Judge John Jones said in his decision in the above-mentioned ruling on ID in public schools, "ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation[.]" The reason this doesn't fly in science is that if you posit that for something to come from nothing requires a creator, you must then explain where the creator comes from. When asked why causation would not apply here, their answer is "Because God." Sadly, that isn't good enough.

It wouldn't apply here, because an uncreated entity would not therefore prove that everything else requires a creator. It would be an exception, no doubt, but it wouldn't prove anything.

How many of those mundane laws feature supernatural exceptions?

"It is permitted to do X, except when Y" is perfectly fine, unless Y violates causation.

That is pedantry on an Olympic level, Wynn. I'm proud of you. Wait, no. Whatever the opposite of proud is.

So should I wait for you to actually read the document and accompanying Wiki page, or should I pretend that you really don't think that's ID's expressed intent?

 

This is a legal principle, but I'm not sure it does what you seem to think it does.

The legal principle does not in and of itself validate the counter-example... i.e. it does not provide any grounds to call the counter-example valid, which is what you are trying to do here.

By using the principle here, all you can say is that "everything has a source except God, and it is not known whether God has a source or not".
The "excepting" does not imply that the opposite is necessarily true for the counter-example, unless you can demonstrate the validity of it being a counter-example.

Which in the case of God you can not, other than by definition, which reduces the applicability of any argument surrounding this God merely to one with the proviso of "if this definition is correct".
I.e. the definition does not prove its existence.

 

I'm not sure you understand what I am talking about.

It's not clear why you want me to defend something you merely imagine I'm trying to do.

You seem to be conflating several issues here.

Namely, one is a matter of properly understanding the ID stance, and another is the veracity of the ID stance.
I have so far focused on properly understanding the ID stance, hence my reference to the principle of exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.
I have made no claims about its veracity, though.

We've talked about this conflation before, on several occasions, and it always seems to be the same: I look merely into the soundness of reasoning, while you conflate that with issues of (empirical) proof.

 

What on earth is this??

Where did IDers argue that "for something to come from nothing requires a creator"??

It still looks like you don't understand the ID reasoning.

You have accused the IDers of lying. That means you believe they know better. You yet need to prove that they indeed know better, but that they freely choose to misrepresent.

 

Actually, the IDer's argument, as I understand it is, that some things are too complex to have happened by natural means (irreducibly complex) and therefore require an "intelligent" designer. Why this same logic doesn't need to apply to the designer is unclear.

 

That explains a great deal. If you had told us at the outset you had reading comprehension difficulties we could have avoided nearly all of this discussion.