Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I find it significant to see the desparation with which IDers attack evolutionary thoory. Were one comfortable in one's belief, in one's faith--one shouldn't feel threatened by scientific research which only seems to contradict the core theses of one's dogma. I strongly suspect that those who put so much energy into discrediting evolutionary theory, and who make the specious claim that science is out to "disprove" the existence of god--are people with sufficient intelligence to see the flaws in adherence to dogma based on folk tales from millenia ago, and they object so strenuously in order not to be obliged to face their own doubt.

Then again, maybe not . . .

0 Replies

Set, I've said as much about religious people including my siblings. There must be a fear factor that does not allow them to see the truth, because their lifelong belief will crumble. After all, they have trained their children to believe in the same religion, and how do they absolve their guilt?

0 Replies

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/comics/images/Toles/20050823.gif

0 Replies

hearty-har-har That is funny!

0 Replies

Quote:

This is one single creationist's unsubstantiated rant that never had to withstand any fact-checking.

Thomas, it is dishonest of you to label Professor Todd a Creation scientist simply because he puts forth something you do feel uncomfortable with. Did you read the link you sent me? It was an essay and was certainly not favourable to Intelligent Design, but was in fact arguing that Evolution should be taught so that it is more convincing- to shield schools from the threat of other options.

Here is another quote from Professor Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist:

Quote:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, 31.

As for the proposition (based on a reading of the Origin of Species) that Darwin is not arguing against design I rely on Richard Dawkins' explanation of this in his book "The Blind Watchmaker"

0 Replies

It seems more than a little absurd to contend that the modern world wanting a deeper and more complex explanation for the intricacy of the universe is a problem. It is the characteristic of the human mind constantly questioning the world in which it is located which makes the human race successful.

Your statement that Darwin provided an alternative to "the design inference" is unsupported. Darwin did not challenge the concept of creation, but in the best tradition of the "philosphers" descended from the Puritans who began the detailed exploration of the natural world in the early eighteenth century, he simply sought to unravel the complexities of what he believed to be a divine creation. Once again, the concept of "intelligent design" is a brand-new concept. There was no such view for Darwin to have challenged. His work was a challenge to and an affront to the exegesis of Bishop Ussher, and all who subscribed to that silly notion. For Dawkins to assert that the "design hypothesis" was virtually universally accepted is to indulge in anachronism. No intellectual consideration of "creation" prior to very recent times contended or defended a concept of "design." The concept was that there was a creation. A concept of "design" as you use it is the product of a very recent attempt to do an end-run on the prohibition against scholastically equating creation myth to scientific inquiry. It was only after the United States Supreme Court struck down the teaching of creation myth in public school science courses that the concept of "design" was promulgated--to dress the old whore up in formal dress for presentation as a respectable idea.

Your language is so much that of ID talking points outline in their websites that i suspect more and more that you are going to a source to make your arguments. This has been discussed again and again in these fora, and likely will be eternally. Someone new will show up with the same shop-worn arguments, false claims, half-truths and misrepresentations, and anyone with the energy and the time to dispute them will be obliged to go through the list once again. It grows tedious.

0 Replies

Set, They are fighting for their lives. That's the only thing that makes any sense. No other discipline would allow hearsay and nonsense to take over as have ID.

0 Replies

Quote:

It seems more than a little absurd to contend that the modern world wanting a deeper and more complex explanation for the intricacy of the universe is a problem. It is the characteristic of the human mind constantly questioning the world in which it is located which makes the human race successful.

You are either wilfully misunderstanding me, or lack comprehension. It is definitely not a problem that the human mind wants to 'constantly question the world in which it is located'- I think this is a fantastic thing. The only difference I put forth is that some scientists no longer find it valid to be confined by the 'chance' propositions that evolution holds to. Yet when they seek to go deeper, Evolutionists cry bloody murder.

Your defenses are straight out of a 'Guide to Discrediting Intelligent Design': ie-

1.)Conflate intelligent design with creationism: Emphasize science as a great force for enlightenment and contrast it sharply with fanatical religious fundamentalism. Then stress that intelligent design is essentially a religious and political movement.

2.) Argue for the superfluity of design: By artificially defining science as an enterprise limited solely to material mechanisms, one conveniently eliminates design from scientific discussion.

3.) Achieve a scientific breakthrough: Provide detailed testable models of how irreducibly complex biochemical systems like the bacterial flagellum could have emerged by material mechanisms.

You know, these may have worked in the past, but it's getting a little stale now Rolling Eyes

. One can moan about how the IDers have no credibility, how they are only in this because they stand the possiblity that doubt might creep in, or that there must be only one IDer on here because 'no one could possibly be as daft as to think it's actually a credible theory', but the crux is- you keep coming back to 'shut us down'. Why? If we are so 'eccentric' and not worth it? I'm sure you'd love it if it was a boy's club, all patting each other on the back for thinking exactly the same thing. Sorry. Cool

0 Replies

Elsie_T wrote:

1.)Conflate intelligent design with creationism: Emphasize science as a great force for enlightenment and contrast it sharply with fanatical religious fundamentalism. Then stress that intelligent design is essentially a religious and political movement.

And why not? Even you haven't shown us yet that Intelligent Design as predicted anything we didn't know already. Before they do, it has no credibility as a science, and has no claim to any label except religious and political movement.

Elsie_T wrote:

Argue for the superfluity of design: By artificially defining science as an enterprise limited solely to material mechanisms, one conveniently eliminates design from scientific discussion.

Nonsense. Sociology, for example, is an enterprise dedicated to a large part to customs, opinions, and other non-material phenomena. Nothing unscientific about that. Anyway, can you please show me where Setanta made this argument? I have a strong feeling you're bashing a strawman here.

Elsie_T wrote:

3.) Achieve a scientific breakthrough: Provide detailed testable models of how irreducibly complex biochemical systems like the bacterial flagellum could have emerged by material mechanisms.

Indeed we do like scientific breakthroughs. They're quite useful. ID proponents should try making one some time. Once you've made one, you'll find there really is nothing stale about them.

0 Replies

The phrase "by chance" is very tricky. Head or tail of a tossed coin appears to be governed by mere chance. However it is "determined" by multiple factors around the event: The initial condition, i.e., how the coin was held at the outset; the hight of tossing, i.e., the neuro-muscle condition of the tossing; how strong the wind was blowing; or the elasticity of the ground to settle the coin..
A chance is a complexity of multiple factors which could be said deterministic at a macro level.

0 Replies

Elsie_T wrote:

You are either wilfully misunderstanding me, or lack comprehension. It is definitely not a problem that the human mind wants to 'constantly question the world in which it is located'- I think this is a fantastic thing. The only difference I put forth is that some scientists no longer find it valid to be confined by the 'chance' propositions that evolution holds to. Yet when they seek to go deeper, Evolutionists cry bloody murder.

Your use of the term "evolutionist" is very revealing. A theory of evolution is not an example of ideological dogma. Creationist is valid because those who purport creation are acting from a dogmatic point of view. Those who practice science, and study evolutionary biology are not dogmatic propagandists, despite the attempt of creationists and IDers to so portray them.

Quote:

Your defenses are straight out of a 'Guide to Discrediting Intelligent Design':

I'm not defending anything, i'm just pointing out how ludicrous your arguments are.

Quote:

1.)Conflate intelligent design with creationism: Emphasize science as a great force for enlightenment and contrast it sharply with fanatical religious fundamentalism.

No conflation is necessary--intelligent design purports a designer. Changing the term creator into designer is just a dodge. The rise of "intelligent design" can be directly traced to the defeat of attempts by religious fundamentalists to have creation myths introduced into school curricula.

Quote:

Then stress that intelligent design is essentially a religious and political movement.

When you attempt to introduce a religious concept into scientific teaching, it is more than a little silly for you to complain about people pointing out that your agenda is religious in nature. The concerted efforts of IDers to use political methods to force state boards of education to adopt ID in science curricula, including the full panoply of applying electoral pressure to members of legislatures makes it quite reasonable to ascribe political tactics to IDers.

Quote:

2.) Argue for the superfluity of design: By artificially defining science as an enterprise limited solely to material mechanisms, one conveniently eliminates design from scientific discussion.

I have not in fact made such an argument, however, i find it hilarious that you inferentially suggest that science is capable of studying anything other than material mechanisms. Unless, of course, you have proof of a reliable method of demonstrating the immaterial--in which case your fortune is assured, and it is ridiculous for your to waste your time posting here.

Quote:

3.) Achieve a scientific breakthrough: Provide detailed testable models of how irreducibly complex biochemical systems like the bacterial flagellum could have emerged by material mechanisms.

Once again, i've not made that argument. You'll need to address that silly quibble to FM, who is more than suitably qualified to make a shambles of your attempt to suggest that this is a false contention. Your use of the term "irreducibly complex biochemical systems" is a pathetic attempt to suggest that such a term has meaning outside the propaganda of IDers.

Quote:

You know, these may have worked in the past, but it's getting a little stale now (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste).

That's rich--we've had the creationists and IDers coming out of the woodwork since this site was established, and their arguments haven't changed in the slightest. This thread was posted to Science and Mathematics precisely because this is a scientific issue. However, the great majority of threads on the subject of evolution are to be found in the Religion and Spirituality forum, because the god squad has their panties in such a twist over the topic.

Quote:

One can moan about how the IDers have no credibility,

You've heard no moaning from me, although i understand how important it is to you to belittle your opponent in debate when you're losing on all fronts.

Quote:

how they are only in this because they stand the possiblity that doubt might creep in,

This is a rather incoherent fragment of a sentence, but assuming you mean to write "they cannot stand, etc."--yes, dogma admits of no doubts. Those who doubt dogma are branded heretical.

Quote:

or that there must be only one IDer on here because 'no one could possibly be as daft as to think it's actually a credible theory',

No, it has simply been pointed out that we get a few at a time, they get shot down, and after a while, a new batch shows up. There are plenty more where you came from. H. L. Mencken wrote that no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. I'd extend that to point out that no one ever went broke relying upon the credulity of the dogmatically religious--or political, for that matter.

Quote:

but the crux is- you keep coming back to 'shut us down'. Why? If we are so 'eccentric' and not worth it?

Because there are many here who read but do not post, and many young people come here seeking information. Therefore, many of us consider it important not to let your nonsense pass unchallenged. You see, i could care less what a fanatic like you thinks, i just want to make sure the silent readers get more than just your narrow views.

Quote:

I'm sure you'd love it if it was a boy's club, all patting each other on the back for thinking exactly the same thing.

Gender, of course, has nothing to do with it. One of your sharpest critics here will be Lola, who assures us that she is all woman, and the evidence of the eyes of many who post here is that she is not lying. Again, you deploy sneers for lack of a credible argument.

Quote:

Sorry.

Yes you are, and you should apologize.

0 Replies

Courtesy of Slate, a debate on our subject here.
http://www.slate.com/id/2124963/

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

The two individuals who have recently arrived on the thread ... (I'll assume it is two people and not one)

You assume correctly. Amusing nonetheless. I take it as a compliment to be compared to Elsie_T. Let me assure I have better things to do than to assume 2 identities for the purpose of debating on a science forum

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

"Someone new will show up with the same shop-worn arguments, false claims, half-truths and misrepresentations, and anyone with the energy and the time to dispute them will be obliged to go through the list once again. It grows tedious.

Funny, it makes me wonder why you even bother to debate on this forum. Unless it is that you are feeling that "desparation" to defend your faith in evolution that you try to pin on us. Let me return your statement to you:

Setanta wrote:

Were one comfortable in one's belief, in one's faith--one shouldn't feel threatened by scientific research which only seems to contradict the core theses of one's dogma.

0 Replies

Farmerman wrote:

adele-g Quote:
At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

This is an urban legend

Well, supposing you are correct and I was misinformed, that's all very well, but this is just one of several cases.

Quote:

Living penguins have been carbon dated and the results said that they had died 8,000 years ago! This is just one of many inaccurate dates given by Carbon dating.

The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!(Science vol. 141 1963 pg. 634-637)

The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago! ("The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" by Paul Taylor)

What about a freshly killed seal? Well, they dated one of those too, the results stated that the seal had died 1,300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct 1971 pg. 211)

A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated. The results stated that the seal had died between 515 and 715 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, Washington)

Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. (Science vol. 224 1984 pg. 58-61)
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

I still stand firmly by my stance that carbon-14 is inaccurate. Note the following:

Quote:

First, the carbon 14 dating method measures the time since a living organism has died. Thus, it is useless for measuring anything that has never been alive, such as a rock. Second, compared with many other radiometric elements, carbon 14 decays quickly. It is useless for dating anything older than about 50,000 years. Third, because carbon 14 forms from cosmic ray bombardment of nitrogen 14 (and decays back into nitrogen 14 through the release of beta particles, i.e., electrons) the effect of variations in cosmic radiation intensity (caused by altitude, depth below the earth's surface, and astronomical events) can be difficult to calibrate. Fourth, a specimen's contamination by carbon from surrounding soil, water, vegetation, and animal matter can seriously undermine accuracy of tests on a given sample. Fifth, the release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning significantly dilutes carbon 14, and researchers have no accurate way to calibrate this dilution factor.
People without training in science may not understand that any radiometric dating method can only be trusted for samples with ages close to the half-life of the element in question. Carbon 14's half-life is 5,770 years. This means it takes 5,770 years for half of the carbon 14 to decay into nitrogen 14. It takes 11,540 years for three fourths of the carbon 14 to decay, 17,310 years for seven-eighths of the carbon to decay, and 23,080 years for fifteen-sixteenths of the carbon to decay. Thus, the half-life of carbon 14 makes it a useful dating tool only for specimens between about 500 and 25,000 years old.
By Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/carbon14.shtml

Quote:

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates."
Dr. Robert Lee. 1981, article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada.

Quote:

"Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model."
http://www.contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php

I read the paper by Roger C Wiens, and it was primarily concerned with dating rocks, which as I have quoted, carbon-14 dating "is useless for measuring anything that has never been alive". Interesting paper, but just because this guy is a Christian doesn't make him right.

Farmerman wrote:

As far as the "Manmade" suboceanic features that you described, they are, alas, natural and not manmade

Where are you getting your information from? I could find nothing concerning the processes you described.

0 Replies

Wandeljw wrote:

Are there ID methods which can differentiate whether an organism evolved through design rather than through mutation and natural selection?

According to William Dembski, yes. When an organism exhibits such complex systems, and such a complex design, it is due to intelligent design. Dembski also notes that such intelligently designed features often resemble things that humans have designed, such as a camera.

Quote:

Michael Behe also compares structures within cells which are similar to those created by man; the bacterial flagellum, which closely resembles an outboard motor.

Wandeljw quoting darwin wrote:

It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye with a telescope

It seems to me that Darwin's comparison of the eye to a telescope points more towards design than it does to unintelligent mutation.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

show me a well-documented timeline that some ID advocates predicted a function before any biologist did

First of all, it would be impossible for ID advocates to predict this before biologists, because many ID advocates are biologists. Secondly, when the discovery of 'junk DNA' came on the scene, many biologists predicted some sort of usage it, just as many predicted that it was left over from some prior evolutionary purpose. A timeline of the emergence of these predictions is irrelevant because obviously nothing had been proven at the point of their discovery. If ID advocates came out with predictions after the use of junk DNA had been found, then yes, they would not be predictions. However, function for biological structures has always been a prediction of intelligent design, not one that surfaced only after 'junk DNA' came on the scene.

Quote:

Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

Thomas wrote:

That isn't evidence for favoring ID over evolutionary biology, since evolutionary biology does not reject the existence of design. For details, see Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker.

Funny, the title implies otherwise, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design

Quote:

all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines

This is the claim that the 'biblical model' makes.

Quote:

males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women

This is a logical prediction based upon that claim. Whether the this particular topic was pursued by the ID scientists, who are unfortunately not huge in numbers, is irrelevant. The claim was already made, so it was by no means a new idea. The work on this area was completed by scientists associated with evolutionary science, yet its findings wholly supported the claims made by the biblically based ID model.

0 Replies

adele,

Darwin's statement about eyes and telescopes indicates he was not in favor of making such an analogy:

Quote:

It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye with a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be presumptuous?

Also, Dembski provides analogies but I do not see an actual methodology to scientifically test these analogies. Has Dembski, or any other ID proponent come up with actual data that challenges the massive evidence supporting Darwin's explanation?

0 Replies

adele_g wrote:

blatham wrote:
The two individuals who have recently arrived on the thread ... (I'll assume it is two people and not one)

You assume correctly. Amusing nonetheless. I take it as a compliment to be compared to Elsie_T. Let me assure I have better things to do than to assume 2 identities for the purpose of debating on a science forum

Happy to amuse. May I further inquire, then...do you believe in the divinity of Jesus? Do you, further, hold that the Bible is the final authority as the Word of God? And lastly, do you consider that your activity here is not merely a matter of objective epistemological inquiry but also a matter of forwarding your personal Christian values?

0 Replies

adele-g

Quote:

I read the paper by Roger C Wiens, and it was primarily concerned with dating rocks, which as I have quoted, carbon-14 dating "is useless for measuring anything that has never been alive". Interesting paper, but just because this guy is a Christian doesn't make him right.

No, but hisw lengthy and cogently written piece , from his own experience,demonstrates a competance in the field that you have not shown. Youve only engaged in "cut/paste" clips from preselected sites, much of which you state that you dont understand anyway. I thought Id give you a view from a respected scientist who , besides, is a Christian so at least you must know that he had no "Naturalistic" worldview to sneak over you. He clearly and modestly reinforces what Ive stated in these threads to a number of others whove taken the "C14 is crap" stance. You have no idea how tiresome it gets to be hearing that a bumblebee can never fly.(nowhatImean Verne?)
However, having stated the obvious
You seem to reinforce my original argument that there was no "supposed dating of dino bones at ORNL by C14", fossils of dinosaurs ARE ROCK not bone, they are either casts in rock, molds, or silicified alterations by rock. Nobody(as you originally claimed and now wish to conveniently toss aside with another tiresome assault on radiometric dating) made the dumb mistake of dating a clearly pre 45K sample by C14 . The samples are too expensive and we dont even have standards for which to compare. There was a report of a recent dino find freom Hells Gate of a segment of "soft tissue' . It appeared to be keragen or some other carbonized alteration.
Ive got a similar advanced degree as the "doubters of C14" and quoting from a false sense of authority from thosewhose vested interest is to deny the usablity of a routine scientific technique is useless to science. You, and they, may wish to deny as much as you want. We will continue using the techniques (with proper field and lab QA, multiple sampling techniques, random QA checks, instrument and methods calibration etc) All these above techniques can weed out the bad samples. Its a standard lab technique. Most system calibrations for low range samples require at least 3 known sample concentrations. Most isotope labs use 5. Also we always send out samples to multiple labs to make sure that nobodys doing random number generating.
The system of radioisotope dating is very robust and the various techniques almost always focus upon a specific date range (+/- error). The uses of the various techniques are important , not only to paleo, but also mineral and water development. We use radioisotopes to determine ages of plutons that contain minerals in one area to see if they are of a similar age in another.
I always get a kick out of the Creationists on this . There are thousands of geochronology scientists who work in this area in the US alone. Worldwide , Ill bet its a few hundred thousand. We have , according to your logic, been duped by a cynical plot to inculcate the end users of our data to a materialistic worldview.
Most of my endusers are business syndicates wishing to spend only the minimum amount of money to determine whether theyve hit "paydirt" or not. They question every piece of data and they rely on third opinions , because the mineral investment cartels are notoriously risk averse. They dont want to spend billions of dollars on data that gives them ultimate bad news when they can, for much less, sample little segments of plutons and get "Go/No GO" decisions after spending far less money. Mineral developers are quite hard headed, and a CREATIONIST model of the earth is unsubstantiatable.It has no supportive data because the data techniques you doubt, are the very ones that prove you wrong by working quite well in the real world, and you dont like that at all.

I hope you realize how Mideaval your entire argument is. If youre an IDer, perhaps you should back up a bit and reread the position statements of ID, as they pretty much agree with and support the findings of science.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know