Author Topic: Intelligent Design question  (Read 20174 times)

JAlexander

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Intelligent Design question
« on: September 11, 2005, 06:53:36 AM »
I'm not too up on the ID debate, but I think I understand the outlines of it.  One question's been bothering me for years, though, and since the Pastafarian satire brought it to mind, I thought I'd ask some of y'all who know about such things.
According to my understanding, ID revolves around the idea that God created the world/universe X number of years ago, and gave us the whole package.   But why?  Wouldn't it be just as good to believe that God kick-started the whole thing billions of years ago, then sat back and watched?

I don't want this to become an argument about the validity of ID v. Evolution, by the way.  I'm just trying to get some perspective on what folks believe, and why.

James

Winston Smith

  • friends
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • Cheaper than a locksmith
    • My Photography
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2005, 06:59:19 AM »
James, a similar question has been in my mind for a while.

I'm interested to hear the answer.
Jack
APS #22
I'm eighteen years old. I know everything and I'm invincible.
Right?

Guest

  • Guest
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2005, 07:03:41 AM »
I don't see them being incompatible and never could understand either side thinking they were.

lee n. field

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,580
  • tinpot megalomaniac, Paulbot, hardware goon
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2005, 09:30:03 AM »
Quote
According to my understanding, ID revolves around the idea that God created the world/universe X number of years ago, and gave us the whole package.   But why?  Wouldn't it be just as good to believe that God kick-started the whole thing billions of years ago, then sat back and watched?
ID (based on my reading of some of their books) is not creationism as usually considered, which is the attempt to reconcile a literal 6 24 hour day creation with the observed physical universe.  ID addresses a narrower question:  In general, can we detect design in any given structure? More controversially, can we detect design in living systems?  ID does not go in to the who, or the why.  

For an interesting take on creation, look at Hugh Ross' work (http://www.reasons.org).  He is an astronomer and an "old earth" creationist who reconciles the biblical creation account(s) with current cosmology and biology in a way that's much more satisfying to me.

Recommended:   Wm. Dembski, The Design Revolution (ID in general and design detection in particular) , and Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution (all the nice stories they told us in school, about the Galapagos finches, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny",  etc. are bogus, ranging from outright fraud, to simple BS, to not being applicable to the question at hand).
In thy presence is fulness of joy.
At thy right hand pleasures for evermore.

Standing Wolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,978
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2005, 01:08:54 PM »
The Great Cat isn't amused by all this idle speculation.
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.

Chris Rhines

  • New Member
  • Posts: 33
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2005, 01:31:09 PM »
ID always seemed to me like a rehash of the natural theology arguments from the late 1700's/early 1800's.

Worth reading - Richard Dawkings' The Blind Watchmaker and Unraveling the Rainbow.

- Chris

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,427
  • My prepositions are on/in
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2005, 01:32:56 PM »
Quote
ID revolves around the idea that God created the world/universe X number of years ago, and gave us the whole package.   But why?  Wouldn't it be just as good to believe that God kick-started the whole thing billions of years ago, then sat back and watched?
I don't think ID denies evolution or big-bang cosmology, at least not directly.  It only denies that these processes could have resulted from mere blind chance.  So if I understand ID correctly, it certainly allows for the theistic evolution model you mention.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Sindawe

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,938
  • Vashneesht
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2005, 02:37:46 PM »
Quote
The Great Cat isn't amused by all this idle speculation.
Really? I was not aware that she had an opinion this debate. Cheesy

Quote
More controversially, can we detect design in living systems?
As one who has studied living systems, I have to say no.  Some organelles have their own DNA, while others do not. Whats up with that?  And the vermiform appendix in the human gut.  Why put something there if it is not needed?
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

Stand_watie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,925
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2005, 02:51:44 PM »
Quote
According to my understanding, ID revolves around the idea that God created the world/universe X number of years ago, and gave us the whole package.   But why?  Wouldn't it be just as good to believe that God kick-started the whole thing billions of years ago, then sat back and watched?
My understanding of intelligent design that it is much broader than that. Not a particular "God", not "x number of years ago" and not neccessarily the "whole package".

If you watched Jurassic Park, you saw Jeff Goldblum describing in his 'chaos theory' what I think of as "intelligent design" with "Nature" being the god. "ahhh, ahhh, ahhhh, don't you see, nature always finds a way".
Yizkor. Lo Od Pa'am

"You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

"Never again"

"Malone Labe"

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2005, 02:52:45 PM »
I am not an expert on ID, though I have looked at the evidence from a hard science background.  It has been a few years, but the evidence available at the time convinced me that the ID-ers have as good a case as the Darwinian evolutionist camp.

What ID is not/does not do:
1. Deny that the evidence shows the earth & the universe is billions of years old.
2. Claim that "my God" or any God or god created the cosmos.
3. Deny that creatures have changed/evolved over time.

What ID does claim:
1. The theory of Darwinian evolution* does not account for the empirical evidence shown in the fossil record+.  The fossil record shows not a continuous evolution of species over time**, but a discontinuous record more akin to quantized energy levels++ with one species living on until time "x" when it is completely wiped out and replaced by another "more evolved" species.
2. Some of the biological processes/organs/etc can not be explained by Darwinian evolution as some of those are "irreducibly complex***."
3. There is a design or push involved to make species' evolution evolve as the data shows.  (IMO, this is the weakest position of ID-ers).

My point of view was developed, in large part, by my training in applied physics.  Theory is nice, but data are what counts.  If the data does not jibe with theory, it is theory that needs to be fixed, not the data.

IMO, the Darwinian evolutionists use their theory as a shield to protect them from what they see as nutty religious tyoes and as a sword against those who follow the data where it leads (away from Darwinian evolution), as they are a threat to not only the Darwinian worldview, but to their grant monies.

The funny thing is, the more we learn about biology, genetics, etc., the more the theory of Darwinian evolution looks like an exercise in faith.  Folks used to argue about a "God of the gaps:" spiritual belief existed where science could not explain things (the "gaps") and that the gaps narrowed every year.  Well, the more we learn, the larger those gaps get, if we constrain ourselves to the Darwinian evolutionist intellectual straightjacket.

In sum, ID thrives in the holes in the Darwinian theory of evolution.  Physicists who know their history know that these itty bitty holes in theory can hide the destruction of a world view (relativity, quantum mechanics, etc).

* Survival of the fittest, tiny mutations (giving advantage in the inter and intra-species competition) over large spans of time accumulate and expresses themselves in a continuous evolution of species.

+ In Darwin's time, gaping holes in the fossil record could be explained by just not having gathered enough evidence.

** Visualize a linear or geometric unboken curve on a cartesian coordinate plane: x-axis being time, y-axis being change/evolution/what-have-you

++ The fossil record resembles more a flight of stairs wiht species dying out and being replaced almost (geologically-speaking) immediately with their more evolved replacements.

*** Irreducibly comlpex, meaning that if one tiny part of (for example) an eye was lacking (retina or cornea or lens or whatever), the organ would be pretty much useless and give no advantage whatsoever in inter/intraspecies competition.  The eye, without the entire complement of its parts, is nothing more than a useless hunk of flesh the creature drags around in its quest to survive & pass on its genes.  How would an evolved lens convey an advantage without not only the other parts of the eye, but without a brain evolved to accept and use the information?
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Stand_watie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,925
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #10 on: September 11, 2005, 03:37:44 PM »
Quote
My point of view was developed, in large part, by my training in applied physics.  Theory is nice, but data are what counts.  If the data does not jibe with theory, it is theory that needs to be fixed, not the data
I had a geology prof in High school who had spent a number of years teaching at a midwestern university. He said that the guys in the biology department were more likely to be darwinian evolutionists and the guys in the math department were more likely to be creationists.

An addendum to my post above - I haven't studied "chaos theory" and I don't claim that it espouses (or doesn't) intelligent design, just that the way it was described in that particular movie sounded that way.
Yizkor. Lo Od Pa'am

"You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

"Never again"

"Malone Labe"

Justin

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 622
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2005, 05:17:21 PM »
ID is different than Creationism in that Creationism states that God created the Earf in 6 days, just like in Genesis.
ID states that something beyond our understanding created the Earf and all the critters over some indeterminate period of time, but what that length of time is, no one knows, nor do they know what that *something* is that created everything.  Could be God.  Could be aliens. Could be The Great Cat.  

The problem with ID is that it's nothing more than warmed over Creationism that's been stripped of the Biblical basis and covered with a veneer of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo in order to make it palatable to non-Christians.

The other problem with ID is that it is most certainly not scientific as there is no fundamental way for it to be tested using the Scientific Method.
Quote
The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations and recursions of the following four steps:

   1. Characterization (Quantification, observation and measurement)
   2. Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation of the observations and measurements)
   3. Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis)
   4. Experiment (test of all of the above)
In essence, for something to be scientific, it must be possible to test it for falsehood via experimentation.  The problem with ID is that it's core is based around the concept of "We don't know why X biological structure or function happened, it must have been done by Go...er, um, I mean The Designer(s)."  I have yet to see a proponent of ID come forth with an experimental method for testing ID.  Nor have any ID proponents allowed their work to be submitted to peer-review in the mainstream scientific community.

In the meantime, I'd like to ask, have you been touched by His noodly appendage?
Your secretary is not a graphic designer, and Microsoft Word is not adequate for print design.

Gewehr98

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 11,010
  • Yee-haa!
    • Neural Misfires (Blog)
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2005, 06:28:04 PM »
The Flying Spaghetti Monster would not be amused at the heresy being promulgated here.  Sad





rAmen.
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

http://neuralmisfires.blogspot.com

"Never squat with your spurs on!"

Guest

  • Guest
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2005, 09:58:54 PM »
Unfortunatly Intelligent Design is utter nonsense. The only basis of Creationism is the bible. Now i personally think that the bible is a perfectly adequate basis. However, if you strip away the biblical basis for creation you are left with nothing but science. Unfortunatly, Intelligent Design is also devoid of scientific basis.

Ultimately what you end up with is something that has neither a religious NOR a scientific basis. Personally, i have a problem with teaching children utter and complete nonsense just to placate people idiology. If you want your kids to learn creationism send them to private school. If you want them to learn actual science, send them to a public school.

telewinz

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 285
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2005, 12:36:30 AM »
In Western cultures ID is hooked-up with the Bible and few Biblical scholars still take the Bible as literal truth.  The great proponents of the Bible and it's literal interpretation were also firmly convinced that the stars were holes in heaven and the world was flat.  These same people and their "book" are creditable sources and are to be taken seriously?  I think not.  All Hail the Great Spaghetti Monster!  Love, honor and worship him and he will love you...or spend eternity in the great boiling spaghetti sauce pot. TGSM is a god of LOVE...or else!
Career Corrections

Justin

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 622
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2005, 04:26:50 AM »
Quote
ersonally, i have a problem with teaching children utter and complete nonsense just to placate people idiology.
Yeah, but what's wrong with a little miseducation that puts US kids at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world when their eternal souls are at stake!  Won't somebody think of the children?

Quote
If you want your kids to learn creationism send them to private school. If you want them to learn actual science, send them to a public school.
The problem with this is that those people who want to teach Creationism/ID in school see it as an attack on their culture and beliefs when public skul science teachers tell them that C/ID isn't science.  Basically, those who buy into C/ID have endeavored to engage in a public policy fight over the resources for public schools.  This, to my mind, is one of the most compelling reasons for completely ending public education and switching over to a fully privatized system.  You wanna send your kid to a school where they teach him that the Earf sits on the back of an elephant, and that under that it's turtles all the way down?  Fine, knock yourself out, but don't ask me to fund it.  Likewise, it's no secret that private schools nearly always have a better curriculum in every subject.
Your secretary is not a graphic designer, and Microsoft Word is not adequate for print design.

Harold Tuttle

  • Professor Chromedome
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,069
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2005, 10:43:52 AM »
they tell us that
we lost our tails
evolving up
from little snails
i say it's all
just wind in sails
are we not men?
we are DEVO!

we're pinheads now
we are not whole
we're pinheads all
jocko homo
are we not men?
D-E-V-O

monkey men all
in business suit
teachers and critics
all dance the poot

are we not men?
we are DEVO!
are we not men?
D-E-V-O


god made man
but he used the monkey to do it
apes in the plan
we're all here to prove it
i can walk like an ape
talk like an ape
i can do what a monkey can do
god made man
but a monkey supplied the glue


we must repeat
o.k. let's go!
"The true mad scientist does not make public appearances! He does not wear the "Hello, my name is.." badge!
He strikes from below like a viper or on high like a penny dropped from the tallest building around!
He only has one purpose--Do bad things to good people! Mit science! What good is science if no one gets hurt?!"

Harold Tuttle

  • Professor Chromedome
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,069
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2005, 10:50:25 AM »
Devo co-founder Mark Mothersbaugh: "Jocko Homo was one of the first songs I wrote for the band. The whole song was meant to be a theme song for the theory of de-evolution and for Devo, what we were about. It was meant to lay out the story right there. It was a collection of discussions we had where we sat around in Kent after students had been shot, and decided that what we were seeing happening on the planet, when we looked at the news and read the paper, was not evolution but was more appropriately described as de-evolution."


Jocko Homo means "Monkey Man." Mothersbaugh was a student at Kent State University when a friend gave him a pamphlet called "Jocko Homo, Heaven Bound King of the Apes." It was a religious pamphlet debunking evolution, explaining how absurd the idea was that a man would descend from a monkey. The pamphlet was printed in the '30s by a religious zealot from Rogers, Ohio. One of the pictures showed a devil pointing up a staircase that said "2 million years along the stairway to heaven." The devil had 'De-Evolution' written on his chest and was laughing and pointing up the stairs. The stairs had names like slavery, world war, drunkenness, adultery - it kept going with horrible attributes of man.


Devo co-founder Jerry Casale: "That was kind of our position statement. It was our mission statement saying, 'Hey look, humans are making up stories about why we're here and how we got here and who we are and what our importance is and it's all basically rubbish, it's absurd. You don't know what's going on, and that's OK. In fact, if you admit you don't know what's going on and you admit there are alternative explanations for things, then you're already better off, and there's a lot of things you won't do because you'd quit believing in ridiculous things that drive you to actions that cause more pain and suffering in the world.' It was kind of a Dada, self-effacing kind of statement, like, 'Look, we're all pinheads here on this planet together.'"


Mothersbaugh: "The chorus that keeps repeating the "Are we not men" is directly from the very first Island Of Lost Souls (1933). There were 2 remakes that were both tepid and not nearly as compelling as the original. The original had a mad scientist on a deserted Pacific Island where he operated on animals - beasts from the jungle, in a room called the House Of Pain. He operates on these beasts to try to raise them up on the evolutionary chart. It's a very painful operation and when he does this, you can hear them screaming in the middle of the night in the House Of Pain. His biggest success was a female named Lota who used to be a panther, but these animals keep devolving backwards. Lota gets cat claws, and she knows she's devolving. He has to do a painful operation to bring her back again, but in the meantime you see all these characters that are like sub-human, half-animal, half-man creatures that stumble around the jungle. Some of them could hold menial jobs at the House Of Pain. At one point, they were walking in a line around a fire in the woods at night while the doctor's working in the House Of Pain, and they were casting shadows on the side of the House Of Pain, and I saw these shadows of these sub-human creatures just slouching past the wall, and I was like, 'Holy crap, I know all those people, they live here in Akron with me.' That's where the inspiration came from. The mad scientist would crack a whip standing on a rock and all the animals would come to attention, and he'd go, 'What is the law?' Usually it meant one of them had broken the law, like bad dogs that aren't house trained yet. They would all go in kind of a humble fashion, 'Not to spill blood.' Then he would go 'Are we not men?' and he'd crack the whip again and then he goes, 'What is the law?' and they'd have another law they'd have to repeat like 'Not to eat flesh' or 'Not to walk on all fours.' Then he'd crack the whip again and go 'Are we not men?' So that's where the line came from. There were like, watered down, wussy versions of it in the later Islands Of Dr. Moreau stuff, but that was a really intense movie. If you were sitting in a living room in Akron, Ohio in 1972 with some quack religious pamphlet sitting on your lap, the next thing was easy."


Casale: "We moved the debate sideways - you believe what you want, but we like this guy that said we're all descendants of cannibalistic apes that ate the brains of other apes and went crazy and lost their tails. That explained what we were looking at in the world better than Darwinism or Creationism."


Casale: "We were kind of poetically explaining what it meant to be Devo, and what de-evolution was. We didn't see any evidence that man was the result of some never ending linear progress and everything was getting better. When we were growing up, the magazines would show the world in 1999, and it'd be this beautiful, futuristic, domed city with everybody going around in jets and space-cars. Everybody was fed and everybody was groomed and everybody seemed to have tons of money. It's such a joke, what really happened was: the planet got more and more overrun by population, greater gaps between the rich and the poor, more new diseases, decimation of the environment. It seemed like even though people were getting more 'free' information from television and newspapers, they were actually less informed, less thoughtful, and acting dumber. So we saw de-evolution. The fact that a bad actor could be elected president was more proof to us. Things have just gone downhill from there. We didn't really want it to all be true, instead it looks like de-evolution was clearly real. In retrospect, compared to what's going on today, Reagan looks like a serious guy."
"The true mad scientist does not make public appearances! He does not wear the "Hello, my name is.." badge!
He strikes from below like a viper or on high like a penny dropped from the tallest building around!
He only has one purpose--Do bad things to good people! Mit science! What good is science if no one gets hurt?!"

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,427
  • My prepositions are on/in
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2005, 03:19:36 PM »
Quote
The other problem with ID is that it is most certainly not scientific as there is no fundamental way for it to be tested using the Scientific Method....In essence, for something to be scientific, it must be possible to test it for falsehood via experimentation....
 
The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations and recursions of the following four steps:

   1. Characterization (Quantification, observation and measurement)
   2. Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation of the observations and measurements)
   3. Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis)
   4. Experiment (test of all of the above)
And how is evolution to be tested by experiment?  Yes, we can test various biological processes to see if they turn out they way we expect, but how can we test to see if random chance and inanimate chemicals create life?  How then does evolution meet your criteria?

Quote
The problem with ID is that it's core is based around the concept of "We don't know why X biological structure or function happened, it must have been done by...The Designer(s)."
I don't think so.  At its core, ID scientists are saying, "We know the complexity of these biological structures and processes, and so we must rule out random processes as an explanation."  In any case, can science not admit its own limitations and say "We understand this much, but the rest is not discoverable"?  Is this different from Heisenberg?  


Quote
Nor have any ID proponents allowed their work to be submitted to peer-review in the mainstream scientific community.
To hear the ID'ers tell it, their articles are not welcome in respectable journals.  I did hear of one exception to this, but I cannot remember which journal.

edited to supply long-lost quotation mark
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,427
  • My prepositions are on/in
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2005, 03:52:40 PM »
Quote
The problem with ID is that it's nothing more than warmed over Creationism
How?  One theory deals entirely with physical, observable evidence and the other relies on divine revelation.  ID proceeds from nature to an intelligent designer, while Creationism begins with a specific deity (if we mean Biblical Creationism) and accepts His account of the world's origins.  No scientific investigation is needed for Biblical Creationism, but ID is only science.

It is very tiring to hear that ID is really just a sneaky attempt to "legitimize" Creationism.  Is there any indication that ID researchers were secretly attending creation science seminars or fundamentalist bible studies before they emerged with thier theories?  Not a rhetorical question; I really don't know.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,427
  • My prepositions are on/in
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2005, 03:56:40 PM »
Quote
few Biblical scholars still take the Bible as literal truth.  The great proponents of the Bible and it's literal interpretation were also firmly convinced that the stars were holes in heaven and the world was flat.
Where do you get this stuff?  All pure nonsense.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2005, 04:13:59 PM »
oopsy...
Avoid cliches like the plague!

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2005, 04:15:38 PM »
Things that make you say hmmmmm...

I lean toward life as being not as uncommon as most would like to believe and that man is a bit arrogant when he says he was created in the image of some almighty being or by an intelligent designer. I further believe that given another planet with the same geological make up and history we would see pretty much the same variety of life forms developing along pretty much the same time line as we've seen here. But that's just me.

I think of life in terms of fractals.

Time only exists because man observes and tracks it. Once man is no longer here time will cease to exist. It goes back to the tree in the forest thing. If noone is there to observe and hear it fall, did the event take place? If noone is here to observe time, does it exist?

I attended both public and parochial schools. That may have something to do with it.

Smiley
Avoid cliches like the plague!

Ron

  • Guest
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #23 on: September 12, 2005, 04:42:18 PM »
Chaos + time = order

Non sentient matter in a state of chaos + time = sentient personality

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,427
  • My prepositions are on/in
Intelligent Design question
« Reply #24 on: September 12, 2005, 08:16:18 PM »
Quote
If noone is there to observe and hear it fall, did the event take place?
And now we've moved on to solipsism.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife