Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Lola wrote:

.... And without science we have no way to inform ourselves about the realities around us. Adherence to authority without question, regardless of evidence to the contrary, is maglignantly fatal.

Well, OK, but we do have a kind of understanding, or intuition if you will, that transcends and is independent of science. Even scientists find themselves occasionally battling the vested "authorities" of their own trades. Sometimes revolutionary ideas are proven valid; sometimes not.

I'm glad to see that Setanta has made the distinction between the specific rejection of a literal biblical interpretation of the origin of man and the possibility that the universe (and the laws of physics themselves) have a creator and designer. I continue to believe that most of this controversy is fueled by -- fanatics on one side who insist that the replacement of an evolutionary model for a literal biblical one also requires that one abandon or ignore the possibility that the universe has a creator and designer: -- and fanatics on the other who insist that the science of biology and the origins and evolution of species is a threat to their belief in God.

Science, more or less by definition, doesn't deal with God. The method and goal of science is to find rational understanding of the observable universe and models that enable us to predict its behavior. A God or creator is necessarily outside that quest. The best that science can do to find God - if there is one - is to fail to find any rational alternative, while at the same time finding a complete understanding of the universe and human consciousness. Science is still a long way from that point.

0 Replies

adele_g wrote:

I just found this book, maybe you should read it "Evolution as Dogma:
The Establishment of Naturalism".
Phillip Johnson

You just found it? You mean you just went to the IDer wellsprings and dug up something you think will seem to have scholarly credentials to underpin your silly arguments?

I tried to google Phillip Johnson for a bio, and came up short. They have many, many biographies of Philip Johnson, the legendary architect, but nothing for Phillip Johnson. So i googled the book title, and got the publisher citation. Wonder of wonders, it wasn't published by a publishing house, it was published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethcis. Now, what is that i asked myself.

As do most websites (and i ignore those which don't) it has an "about us" link. At that link, one can read:

The Foundation for Thought and Ethics wrote:

The Foundation for Thought and Ethics is working to restore freedom to know to young people in the classroom, espeically in matters of worldview, morality, and conscience, and to return the right of informed consent to families in the education of their children.

To do this, FTE has organized several influential scientific symposia, produced major publishing breakthroughs on the subject of orgins, helped to inspire robust and exciting international movement of Intelligent Design, and launched an enriching series of high school textbooks now used in both public and private schools.

So, no thanks, i'm not putting money into the pockets of IDers. If you come up with a link at which someone can read the text without wasting good money on somebody's politico-religious agenda, i might read it. Otherwise, i'll leave it for the "preaching to the choir" crowd--they can waste their hard-earned dollars if they like.

0 Replies

Interesting article about the Discovery Institute in the New York Times. For my taste, its style errs a bit too far on the side of "Shape of Earth: Views Differ". But even so, it shows quite clearly that the strong side of the Discovery Institute is political campaigning, not scientific research.

In today's issue, The New York Times wrote:

SEATTLE - When President Bush plunged into the debate over the teaching of evolution this month, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught," he seemed to be reading from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, the conservative think tank here that is at the helm of this newly volatile frontier in the nation's culture wars.

After toiling in obscurity for nearly a decade, the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country. Pushing a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution, the institute has in many ways transformed the debate into an issue of academic freedom rather than a confrontation between biology and religion.

Mainstream scientists reject the notion that any controversy over evolution even exists. But Mr. Bush embraced the institute's talking points by suggesting that alternative theories and criticism should be included in biology curriculums "so people can understand what the debate is about."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?pagewanted=print&oref=login

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Lola wrote:

.... And without science we have no way to inform ourselves about the realities around us. Adherence to authority without question, regardless of evidence to the contrary, is maglignantly fatal.

Well, OK, but we do have a kind of understanding, or intuition if you will, that transcends and is independent of science. Even scientists find themselves occasionally battling the vested "authorities" of their own trades. Sometimes revolutionary ideas are proven valid; sometimes not.

All of this is true. But your reply to Lola raises several points. 1) As far as I am informed, the opponents of teaching intelligent design in science classes don't object in principle to teaching it in philosophy classes. And in my opinion, discussions about transcendent issues belong in philosophy classes, not science classes. 2) It is misleading to portray creationism, including branches such as "Intelligent Design", as a revolutionary idea. The truth is that it had been the orthodoxy for over 1500 years, and that the scientific revolution undermined it over the centuries between Copernicus and Darwin. This distinction matters because the press likes to tell conflicts as David and Goliath stories, knowing that public opinion will stack the cards in favor of David. Therefore, if a political campaign falsely markets itself as a David, that's a foul, and it should at least be called on it. 3) In my not so humble opinion, when a theory has no track record whatsoever in predicting anything about the real world, it doesn't belong in a science curriculum -- 'revolutionary' or not.

0 Replies

set, the Philip E. Johnson (not the architect but a past trial lawyer) wrote the original ID books in the early 90's "Darwin on Trial"
His l;ater stuff, "Wedge of Truth" is the foundation of a lot of the Dicovery Institutes cynical approach.
A book hes written "Defeating Darwinism" is one I havent read and , because PE is rather predictable (same **** different day) I may not read this one till it gets quoted as an original source.

adele-g. The cilia and flagella story has been going on for as long as Behe has brought it up. Hes included
The eye
flagella
clotting of blood
as examples of irreducibly complex features.The study of which had revealed that the eye is certainly NOT irreduscibly complex snce it goes back into the fossils of specific pelecypods of the early Cambrian and, theres evidence of simpler ganglia in Pre Cambrian (Vendean animals)

The arrangement of the enzymes in blood clotting have been tracked to a concept of genome capture by A Giaist scientist . Since blood is a higher order fluid, the clotting of fluids in Limulus were evaluated and they seemed to fit the enzyme sequence fairly closely.

The flagella "rotor" is not as mechanical as shown in Behes own webpage (of course, as the major proponent of a concept, hed want to dress it up as best as he can). I have doubt that the assertion that flagella appear out of nowhere "fully formed" (which is a favorite statement by the Discovery Institute), will go unchallenged. Im sure that the bottom of the story will be found since there are some fossils so equipped.
I always liked Raups argument about "fully formed and irreduscibly complex components"
He used a mousetrap since Behe used that as an example of how evolution solves problems/ A mousetrap was designed fully formed with no other previous purpose. Raup tore off the keeper and then announced that "before this was a mousetrap, it made one hell of a tieclip."
That is , of course a light hearted explanation of accumulated function. Parts work perfectly as something else until a modification confers some advantage. Then the new model gets passed through the population .
I wouldnt get caught up with flagella as a "test" of concept . You will probably be disappointed when its viewed in a cladistic developmental fashion.

0 Replies

Thankyou farmerman, that was the Phillip Johnson to whom I was referring.

I don't really know much about blood clotting or the ireducibility of the eye so i can't comment there, but I do understand what you are referring to by Raup's argument. Some people argue that the parts of the flagellum motor can be found elsewhere in the cells and therefore can be reused to create the motor, like the mousetrap having a prior purpose- tie clip. However, while some of the parts can be accounted for by this, many cannot. I realise that the motor looks a lot more metal and mechanical in the diagram, the real thing would look a lot more like the picture on the ARN link.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

...All of this is true. But your reply to Lola raises several points. 1) As far as I am informed, the opponents of teaching intelligent design in science classes don't object in principle to teaching it in philosophy classes. And in my opinion, discussions about transcendent issues belong in philosophy classes, not science classes.

Nice distinction, however science is a required part of the curriculum in high school, while philosophy is not even offered. It doesn't seem unreasonable in this circumstance to ask that science acknowledge its buolt in limitations.

Quote:

2) It is misleading to portray creationism, including branches such as "Intelligent Design", as a revolutionary idea. The truth is that it had been the orthodoxy for over 1500 years, and that the scientific revolution undermined it over the centuries between Copernicus and Darwin. This distinction matters because the press likes to tell conflicts as David and Goliath stories, knowing that public opinion will stack the cards in favor of David. Therefore, if a political campaign falsely markets itself as a David, that's a foul, and it should at least be called on it.

Actually I didn't have creationism in mind when I wrote that - instead I was thinking about the late 19th centrury and the early indications that Newtonian physics contradicted n ew findings, particularly involving electromagnetism. I was thinking about science's own authoritarianism. I accept your description of the orthodoxy of the last millenia. However today - and on this thread - it is fairly clear that David is not the right model for those who oppose ID. in the name of endorsing evolution, but who all too often go on to implicitly or explicitly deny intelligent design at any stage of the origin of the universe.

Quote:

3) In my not so humble opinion, when a theory has no track record whatsoever in predicting anything about the real world, it doesn't belong in a science curriculum -- 'revolutionary' or not.

I would agree with that. I would also add that any theory that cannot approach offering a complete explanation for human consciousness and the human desire for justice and completeness, cannot claim to preempt philosophy.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Nice distinction, however science is a required part of the curriculum in high school, while philosophy is not even offered.

Not even offered? Wow, America's public school system must be even more wretched than I thought then.

georgeob1 wrote:

Actually I didn't have creationism in mind when I wrote that - instead I was thinking about the late 19th centrury and the early indications that Newtonian physics contradicted n ew findings, particularly involving electromagnetism. I was thinking about science's own authoritarianism.

Good point. This authoritarianism is the reason I prefer a school system that doesn't set curriculae through a political process, as do you. Authoritarianism in science is much less of a problem when scientists cannot enforce their findings through government power.

Quote:

I would also add that any theory that cannot approach offering a complete explanation for human consciousness and the human desire for justice and completeness, cannot claim to preempt philosophy.

I agree. That's why I'm surprised you shouldn't have philosophy classes in your schools not even under a different name.

0 Replies

Thomas, Yes, the American school system is wretched, and it's gotten worse with Bush's "leave no child behind." Teachers are now teaching to the test, and those students that can't hack it are dropping out in droves. That's all part and parcel of the "improvement in the scores." Bush has also cut funding for leave no child behind for the 2006 school year. Many liberal courses have been dropped, and the potential for teaching anything like Philosophy in our high schools is more remote today than it was before leave no child behind. Our schools are dropping art and music courses too. "Wretched" is too kind.

0 Replies

I agree there are many defects in our schools, but I don't think that enforciing objective measures of achievement is the cause.

Our public school system is excessively politicized -- by professional educators with their contemporary theories of life and education and inclination to listen only to themselves; by secularist thinkers who consider that any acknowledgement of the possibility of a god is tantamount to the advocacy of religion; by religious fundamentalists who insist on literal interpretations of scriptural texts they favor as "science"; and by teacher's unions which seek only more dues-paying members and less accountability for their work.

At the same time there are many instances and areas in which it works fairly well. Farmerman and others have given us examples of this.

I don't think the way out of this dilemma can be found through further tinkering with the system. Free parental choice in an environment of competing systems would be my prescription for improvement.

0 Replies

georgeob, "Free parental choice" is not logistically possible. The best schools are already filled up to their eyeballs, and are taking steps to make sure students live in their district. That's been our experience here in Sunnyvale, CA.

0 Replies

The American public school systems are (remember its a state initiative) like the way we treat Little League Baseball today (hang on there is a point)
In Little League
1 You must take all applicants
2 Everyone must be given a chance to play
3 There is little hope for great players till High School.

However, by adopting standards of achievement. (pre NoChild...) we have, at least,imparted the minimum accepted knowledge. If you think SCience is a crime, you oughta see history. Im amazeed that kids today even have a basic undertsanding of our country and its place in the world. Although part of the problem began in the 70's when we began teaching "the teachers" with all sorts of incohesive , pre-spun half truths. The teachesr werent even certain about their subjects and , of course, this goes on today.

Parochial schools still give the best bang for the buck, even with the idiotic requirements that they say a "Hail MAry" or two as an opener to Chemistry.

0 Replies

Along with others here, I too have advocated a side by side "teach the controversy"(a misnomer) approach. This effort I had envisioned as a separate (not science) course, within which the merits of both sides would be examined on an impartial basis. However, reading in the Forum section of the most recent edition of "Skeptic" magazine (Vol. 11 No. 4 2005) I came across George Miller's (Altadena, CA [email protected] ) Idea of co-option:

"Why give the likes of William Dembski carte blanche to define ID? Why not take his pioneering work and expand and refine it? For example, Dembski apparently posits that Intelligent Design must be at the root of Complex Specified Information (CSI)"

Although I would be satisfied if Mr. Dembski's work contained less pseudo-technical jargon such as CSI, EF (Explanatory Filter) and UPB (Universal Probability Bound, a constant which we are told equals (½ * 10^-150) ), Mr. Miller is undeterred by such efforts at translucence and wishes to reinforce ID's main tenet of Complex Structures demanding metaphysical explanations. Miller posits the following corollaries:

"The more complex the structure, the more likely that the intelligence behind it derives from more than one source.

The more complex the structure, the more iterations or prototypes predate the structure"

Miller then cites the classic examples of primitive sand castles and gold pocket watches found on deserted beaches and states that the reasonable assumption of the former is one immature designer and the latter that of "collective intelligence" involving mechanical, metallurgical, and artistic professional collaboration. Further, it would be "unreasonable to conclude that such a sophisticated mechanism came to be without some prior, simpler, predecessor watches."

Miller then slyly tries to hoist IDers on their on petard of theism by suggesting the watch example implies polytheism more so than their Monotheistic assumptions. But Mr. Miller is not quite done. Using the Book "The Probability of God" and its method of assigning 50/50 probability to Yes/No (True or False) questions (each answer resulting in a probable God cuts down the eventual result or probability of God by Half) he attempts to whittle down the statistical probability of God's existence (Four questions answered in favor of God produces a probability of his existence of 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 or 0.0625).

But, while entertaining and witty, Miller's hopeful methods to bring IDers to rational conclusions overlook the fact that they are neither reasonable nor impartial let alone rational. Those espousing ID make assumptions but, unlike those participating in the scientific method, these assumptions are the desired end result of their "Investigations" and not beginning hypotheses immediately subject to revisions given empirical data once gathered and analyzed. ID proponents already "know" the answer to the question of God's existence. Alternatively, scientists' questions relate to how and why things are and seldom, if ever, about who is involved. IDers work from the top down, scientists work from the bottom up. To scientists, the foundation of an argument is as equally important as to its resulting conclusion. As are buildings, ideas with weak foundations, at best, have no value.

JM

0 Replies

always a pleasure Jim.

0 Replies

JamesMorrison wrote:

But, while entertaining and witty, Miller's hopeful methods to bring IDers to rational conclusions overlook the fact that they are neither reasonable nor impartial let alone rational. Those espousing ID make assumptions but, unlike those participating in the scientific method, these assumptions are the desired end result of their "Investigations" and not beginning hypotheses immediately subject to revisions given empirical data once gathered and analyzed. ID proponents already "know" the answer to the question of God's existence. Alternatively, scientists' questions relate to how and why things are and seldom, if ever, about who is involved. IDers work from the top down, scientists work from the bottom up. To scientists, the foundation of an argument is as equally important as to its resulting conclusion. As are buildings, ideas with weak foundations, at best, have no value.

JM

The second sentence here is an enormous leap to generality that is hardly justified by what preceeds it. The rest is nonsense. I'll leave you to place your bets on a universe "explained" by dark matter, magnetic monopoles and twelve curled up dimensions, and multiple, indeed manifold, parallel universes. That, of course is no explanation at all.

0 Replies

george, I'm afraid you missed the crux of JMs post. Science is bottom up with checks and balances. ID is top to bottom with no way to verify it. It ends up to be an "assumption" with no basis in fact except a guess. Doesn't even come close to being a scientific issue. It belongs in Religion or Philosophy, but never in Science.

0 Replies

I don't think the "top down" & "bottom up" metaphors carry much water. Certainly they don't prove anything. The mystery of our existence is quite unexplained by science. While it is both understandable and proper for science, at the boundaries of what is known, to seek explanations within the context of its theories, the fact remains that science cannot coherently explain the origins of the universe (or multiverse). There is no "scientific" basis whatever on which one can deny the proposition that the universe had a creator.

0 Replies

Quote:

So, no thanks, i'm not putting money into the pockets of IDers. If you come up with a link at which someone can read the text without wasting good money on somebody's politico-religious agenda, i might read it. Otherwise, i'll leave it for the "preaching to the choir" crowd--they can waste their hard-earned dollars if they like.

Farmerman, you sound a little narrow-minded... or maybe just naive. Do you honestly think you have ever read a book where the author is not trying to force a particular worldview on you? You think only Christians 'preach'? Everyone has an agenda. How silly would you find me if I said that on principle I never read books by Humanists? Unless you are scared that the IDers might actually convince you, you don't really have good grounds for putting your blinkers on.

0 Replies

Elsie_T wrote:

Quote:
So, no thanks, i'm not putting money into the pockets of IDers. If you come up with a link at which someone can read the text without wasting good money on somebody's politico-religious agenda, i might read it. Otherwise, i'll leave it for the "preaching to the choir" crowd--they can waste their hard-earned dollars if they like.

Farmerman, you sound a little narrow-minded... or maybe just naive. Do you honestly think you have ever read a book where the author is not trying to force a particular worldview on you? You think only Christians 'preach'? Everyone has an agenda. How silly would you find me if I said that on principle I never read books by Humanists? Unless you are scared that the IDers might actually convince you, you don't really have good grounds for putting your blinkers on.

Unless it's that bad ole contempt prior to investigation.

0 Replies

In the first place, Farmerman did not write that, i did. In the second place, i apply that standard to all books. If i don't know the author, i check the publishing house. If i don't know the publishing house, i investigate the book further before i plop down my money. In this case, there is no established publishing house, it was published by a site which proclaims itself as having been instrumental (actually, the conceited gits claim full credit) in the foundation of "intelligent design." Ordinary publishing house publish books on merit--for fiction, that means that their editiors with the most experience think it will sell. For non-fiction, that means the work has been vetted, almost always by peer review. In this, case the publisher has an agenda to foward at the outset. So they won't get one red cent out of me for a work for which the likelihood is that its sole purpose is to forward the agenda of the publisher, as opposed to a dispassionate investigation of science.

That decision was made without reference to Farmerman or anyone else. I've read history since my grandfather gave me The Outline of History to read in 1957. I apply this same standard to historical works. Anyone who wishes can make snotty remarks to suggest that i have a closed mind--it won't change the reasonable standard which i apply to any book which i intend to buy. If i cannot hold it in my hand and examine it before purchase, it will not be purchased if it cannot pass these simple and straight-forward tests.

But Farmerman did prove to be valuable in this, confirming my suspicions with the information he provided about the author. As he makes his living applying specific scientific knowledge germane to this topic, i'll take his word over that of anyone here, especially those who appear to wish to forward the same agenda as Mr. Johnson.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know