"Non-Supernatural Intelligent Design": Viable Epistemology/ Probative Science Tool?
The topic of non-supernatural intelligent design appears deserving of its own thread where many more people are able to see it and join in.
This thread is a spin-off from Zero's thread: Creationism does NOT belong in science. By spinning off, this thread can explore further the topic herein unencumbered by the much broader range of possible topics still carrying forth 'over there'. Also, the discussion here won't hijack and divert Zero's thread away from his original topic, and it gives us the ability to more narrowly focus the discussion in a very specific way.
So, this thread is devoted entirely to, and quite intentionally limited to, open discussion of NON-SUPERNATURAL Intelligent Design theory.
*******-> Therefore, I ask that all posters wishing to discuss the "SUPERNATURAL" form of Intelligent Design" (you know: "god did it, and Zeus watched") to please do so only in the other thread. We thank you.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
So, to re-boot (or re-mount, as the case may be) and re-initialize....
Warren, et al.;
As you see in the other thread, there is here a rather pronounced, though not unanimous, general disregard for pleas to the supernatural. That is, no doubt, why you have come to SciForums--motivated by a sincere desire to make your case for:
Arising from our not unexpected disregard, the sufficient, though not formally rigorous, case has been made (in the other thread ) as to the why and how creationism is invalidated as a viable adjunct of science--a premise you already find agreeable; as you've stated:
So, onto the presentation of the specifics of your case, Warren, for natural (as opposed to super-natural) intelligent design (NID)....
To help this part of the discussion to move over here, I have gathered some representative samplings of your thoughts below, mostly to spare people having to go back and forth between the threads so much. I appreciate that this collection of 'samplings' may only reflect my own personal selection bias as to what stands out most in relevence to introducing this iteration of the discussion. To that, I cop to owing a nominal amount of pleadings mea culpa.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
By way of tranfer from the other thread, I paraphrase here some of your earlier thoughts (as SciForum's principal proponent of NID) for the benefit of the ensuing discussions:
For instance, in the other thread, in response to Zero's statement:
"....the fact stands that creationism does NOt belong in science."
....you replied, "Depends on how you define creationism and how you define science."
Elsewhere, you asked of various others:
>"A scientist suspects that non-intelligent processes may be insufficient to produce biological complexity. He wishes to follow-up his suspicion with an investigation using the scientific method. .... Can what he is doing be called science?"
>"....are you opposed to anything that's not compatible with materialism?"
>"If biological structures are not created by random, blind, purposeless copying errors plus natural selection then how are they created? (There is nothing for natural selection to select until a complex, rational, functioning biological structure is in existence.) Is life ‘self organized’? Intelligently self-organized? What would be the difference between intelligently self-organized and intelligently designed?"
>"....without the evidence of direct experience and testimony, could we ever hope to detect such intelligent intervention? In other words, is it possible to *indirectly* detect intelligent intervention? If not, then the claim, "There is no evidence of intelligent intervention," becomes rather meaningless. For it would simply mean that our methods failed to detect the things our methods are unable to detect. But if we can indirectly detect intelligent intervention, then such an effort would qualify as science and the results would be meaningful."
>"As for teleologists presenting something unequivocal I suppose you mean (1) showing the designer in action, or (2) discovering the actual design protocols (i.e., the designer's lab notebook) or (3) providing an example of something that couldn't possibly have evolved. The problem is that even if life was indeed designed (for example), there is not one good reason (not one) why we should be able to do (1), (2), or (3). That is, (1), (2), and (3) are simply not entailed by the truth of ID in history. So the question is how do we go about detecting ID without (1), (2), and (3). And that is what ID is all about. It is about looking for fingerprints of intelligent intervention. It is about employing an "if, then" forensic approach to guide an experimental inquiry that can generate results that either support or weaken the initial design inference."
>"I can think of three possible explanations of evolution: 1) The theistic assumption that God guides nature’s creative processes. 2) A creative intelligence innate in all living matter drives the process -- a creative intelligence which might be viewed as a natural force such as gravity. However, unlike gravity, creative intelligence is neither measurable nor predictable. 3) Novel Biological structures are the result of some unknown non-intelligent, mechanistic process - as yet to be specified by ‘science’. Does our present understanding allow us to impose any one of these possibilities upon society, and prohibit consideration of the others?"
>"If science is required to limit itself to mechanistic explanations, and life is not a mechanistic process, perhaps science can not explain life."
>"....without the evidence of direct experience and testimony, could we ever hope to detect such intelligent intervention? In other words, is it possible to *indirectly* detect intelligent intervention? If not, then the claim, "There is no evidence of intelligent intervention," becomes rather meaningless. For it would simply mean that our methods failed to detect the things our methods are unable to detect."
You said variously in regards to Science, naturalism, or materialism:
>"Scientists don't accept naturalistic abiogenesis because of the evidence. No, scientists accept naturalistic abiogenesis because the game rules of science preclude any hint of teleology."
>"....it's important to note that the hostility of the scientific community towards creationism is .... a commitment of the scientific community to the blind watchmaker hypothesis."
>"....so far no one has specified exactly how biological complexity might actually be created."
>"One can use the scientific method without subscibing to the philosophy of materialism."
>" It is a faulty assumption that science is about coming up with the best possible explanation."
>"Non-teleologists embrace extraordinary claims without any evidence, yet demand (while pounding the podium) proof of ID."
About NID you've said:
>"....ID is every bit as falsifiable as Darwinism."
>"That a competent blind watchmaker may not exist at all and that certain aspects of biotic reality may be better explained by a seeing watchmaker...."
>"I believe ID can be detected in a working sense. That is, one can score features that provisionally place something in the tentative "designed" category and build from there. This is why ID researchers prefer making a "design inference" rather than asserting they have detected design."
>"Intelligent design is a form of teleology and not creationism.
>"I personally see more than sufficient evidence to trigger a suspicion that ID is behind the origin of life in the fact that biology not only needs teleological language and concepts, but that such concepts really do generate an understanding of life. I think life expresses enough complex specified information such that ID is a better explanation for its origin than geochemistry. For me, this evidence goes beyond mere suspicion and takes me close to the realm of the "most likely."
About NID as Epistemology you've said:
>"Why am I open to teleological explanations? It's a judgment call,...."
>"I'm not looking for a fail proof detector of ID."
>"I need a much more rigorous set of evidence to think random mutations and natural selection were indeed the only mechanisms behind the origin of biological innovations post-abiogenesis."
>"To me, it is not a question of proof, but a question of whether data exist that trigger a suspicion of ID."
>"The ID movement has the potential of evening the playing field by reviving its arguments in more sophisticated versions."
>"I'm questioning this whole notion that in order for a theory to be useful and increase our understanding of biotic reality it has to be devoid of teleology."
>"....if we can indirectly detect intelligent intervention, then such an effort would qualify as science and the results would be meaningful."
Some other things you have said:
>"Simply trying to establish that something is possible is about as weak of a claim there can be."
Some things said by others that you have quoted to make a your own point:
>"....plausibility is about the weakest criterion one can apply to an evolutionary hypothesis."
The topic of non-supernatural intelligent design appears deserving of its own thread where many more people are able to see it and join in.
This thread is a spin-off from Zero's thread: Creationism does NOT belong in science. By spinning off, this thread can explore further the topic herein unencumbered by the much broader range of possible topics still carrying forth 'over there'. Also, the discussion here won't hijack and divert Zero's thread away from his original topic, and it gives us the ability to more narrowly focus the discussion in a very specific way.
So, this thread is devoted entirely to, and quite intentionally limited to, open discussion of NON-SUPERNATURAL Intelligent Design theory.
*******-> Therefore, I ask that all posters wishing to discuss the "SUPERNATURAL" form of Intelligent Design" (you know: "god did it, and Zeus watched") to please do so only in the other thread. We thank you.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
So, to re-boot (or re-mount, as the case may be) and re-initialize....
Warren, et al.;
As you see in the other thread, there is here a rather pronounced, though not unanimous, general disregard for pleas to the supernatural. That is, no doubt, why you have come to SciForums--motivated by a sincere desire to make your case for:
....to such a community. In fact, you appreciate that you must be able to make your case effectively here, before you are able to anticipate similarly being able to sway the minds of others in other truly more rigorous venues. Because, as you've stated:
....(with the associated apriori need to resort to a modified form ot the scientific method, as in)....
....and the price of being able to sway such minds is being truly persuasive.
Arising from our not unexpected disregard, the sufficient, though not formally rigorous, case has been made (in the other thread ) as to the why and how creationism is invalidated as a viable adjunct of science--a premise you already find agreeable; as you've stated:
--and so, such case already having been made, together let us all now stipulate that unprovable supernatural agents and aspects normally attributed to "Intelligent Design" henceforth have no merit in furthering the discussion of non-super-natural intelligent design now at hand.
So, onto the presentation of the specifics of your case, Warren, for natural (as opposed to super-natural) intelligent design (NID)....
To help this part of the discussion to move over here, I have gathered some representative samplings of your thoughts below, mostly to spare people having to go back and forth between the threads so much. I appreciate that this collection of 'samplings' may only reflect my own personal selection bias as to what stands out most in relevence to introducing this iteration of the discussion. To that, I cop to owing a nominal amount of pleadings mea culpa.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
By way of tranfer from the other thread, I paraphrase here some of your earlier thoughts (as SciForum's principal proponent of NID) for the benefit of the ensuing discussions:
For instance, in the other thread, in response to Zero's statement:
"....the fact stands that creationism does NOt belong in science."
....you replied, "Depends on how you define creationism and how you define science."
Elsewhere, you asked of various others:
>"A scientist suspects that non-intelligent processes may be insufficient to produce biological complexity. He wishes to follow-up his suspicion with an investigation using the scientific method. .... Can what he is doing be called science?"
>"....are you opposed to anything that's not compatible with materialism?"
>"If biological structures are not created by random, blind, purposeless copying errors plus natural selection then how are they created? (There is nothing for natural selection to select until a complex, rational, functioning biological structure is in existence.) Is life ‘self organized’? Intelligently self-organized? What would be the difference between intelligently self-organized and intelligently designed?"
>"....without the evidence of direct experience and testimony, could we ever hope to detect such intelligent intervention? In other words, is it possible to *indirectly* detect intelligent intervention? If not, then the claim, "There is no evidence of intelligent intervention," becomes rather meaningless. For it would simply mean that our methods failed to detect the things our methods are unable to detect. But if we can indirectly detect intelligent intervention, then such an effort would qualify as science and the results would be meaningful."
>"As for teleologists presenting something unequivocal I suppose you mean (1) showing the designer in action, or (2) discovering the actual design protocols (i.e., the designer's lab notebook) or (3) providing an example of something that couldn't possibly have evolved. The problem is that even if life was indeed designed (for example), there is not one good reason (not one) why we should be able to do (1), (2), or (3). That is, (1), (2), and (3) are simply not entailed by the truth of ID in history. So the question is how do we go about detecting ID without (1), (2), and (3). And that is what ID is all about. It is about looking for fingerprints of intelligent intervention. It is about employing an "if, then" forensic approach to guide an experimental inquiry that can generate results that either support or weaken the initial design inference."
>"I can think of three possible explanations of evolution: 1) The theistic assumption that God guides nature’s creative processes. 2) A creative intelligence innate in all living matter drives the process -- a creative intelligence which might be viewed as a natural force such as gravity. However, unlike gravity, creative intelligence is neither measurable nor predictable. 3) Novel Biological structures are the result of some unknown non-intelligent, mechanistic process - as yet to be specified by ‘science’. Does our present understanding allow us to impose any one of these possibilities upon society, and prohibit consideration of the others?"
>"If science is required to limit itself to mechanistic explanations, and life is not a mechanistic process, perhaps science can not explain life."
>"....without the evidence of direct experience and testimony, could we ever hope to detect such intelligent intervention? In other words, is it possible to *indirectly* detect intelligent intervention? If not, then the claim, "There is no evidence of intelligent intervention," becomes rather meaningless. For it would simply mean that our methods failed to detect the things our methods are unable to detect."
You said variously in regards to Science, naturalism, or materialism:
>"Scientists don't accept naturalistic abiogenesis because of the evidence. No, scientists accept naturalistic abiogenesis because the game rules of science preclude any hint of teleology."
>"....it's important to note that the hostility of the scientific community towards creationism is .... a commitment of the scientific community to the blind watchmaker hypothesis."
>"....so far no one has specified exactly how biological complexity might actually be created."
>"One can use the scientific method without subscibing to the philosophy of materialism."
>" It is a faulty assumption that science is about coming up with the best possible explanation."
>"Non-teleologists embrace extraordinary claims without any evidence, yet demand (while pounding the podium) proof of ID."
About NID you've said:
>"....ID is every bit as falsifiable as Darwinism."
>"That a competent blind watchmaker may not exist at all and that certain aspects of biotic reality may be better explained by a seeing watchmaker...."
>"I believe ID can be detected in a working sense. That is, one can score features that provisionally place something in the tentative "designed" category and build from there. This is why ID researchers prefer making a "design inference" rather than asserting they have detected design."
>"Intelligent design is a form of teleology and not creationism.
>"I personally see more than sufficient evidence to trigger a suspicion that ID is behind the origin of life in the fact that biology not only needs teleological language and concepts, but that such concepts really do generate an understanding of life. I think life expresses enough complex specified information such that ID is a better explanation for its origin than geochemistry. For me, this evidence goes beyond mere suspicion and takes me close to the realm of the "most likely."
About NID as Epistemology you've said:
>"Why am I open to teleological explanations? It's a judgment call,...."
>"I'm not looking for a fail proof detector of ID."
>"I need a much more rigorous set of evidence to think random mutations and natural selection were indeed the only mechanisms behind the origin of biological innovations post-abiogenesis."
>"To me, it is not a question of proof, but a question of whether data exist that trigger a suspicion of ID."
>"The ID movement has the potential of evening the playing field by reviving its arguments in more sophisticated versions."
>"I'm questioning this whole notion that in order for a theory to be useful and increase our understanding of biotic reality it has to be devoid of teleology."
>"....if we can indirectly detect intelligent intervention, then such an effort would qualify as science and the results would be meaningful."
Some other things you have said:
>"Simply trying to establish that something is possible is about as weak of a claim there can be."
Some things said by others that you have quoted to make a your own point:
>"....plausibility is about the weakest criterion one can apply to an evolutionary hypothesis."
Last edited: