Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

But now, consider that most of us were taught that Isaac Newton conceived a notion of gravity by observing the objects always fall to the ground and never sideways or up. So was his conclusion that there was a force we came to call gravity just a proposition or point of view, or can we call it the basis of a scientific theory? It would be a long time before the theory was 'proved' or scientifically accepted.

How about Columbus observing that he saw first the tip of the mast of an approaching ship before the rest of the mast and then the ship came into view and concluded from this that there was a curvature to the Earth. Was this just a proposition or point of view, or can we call that the basis of a scientific theory? It would be a long time before the theory was 'proved' or scientifcally accepted.

I think it qualifies as theory. We can't prove it at this time, but neither could Newton prove his theory at the time he conceived it. But how can we be certain that it will never be proved?

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

No doubt, Thomas. I'm conceding that I'm out of your (and others') league discussing scientific principle (though all my science teachers and professors would really be disappointed that I am so incompetent that I'm being rejected. )

But I also reject the notion that it is illogical and should be dismissed as ID-iocy just because nobody knows how to prove it now, and I reject that it is improper for science teachers to allow it as one of those unknown possibilities that we can't yet prove. To me it is a valid theory and I think only closed minds don't allow for the possibility.

Foxfyre wrote:

No doubt, Thomas. I'm conceding that I'm out of your (and others') league discussing scientific principle (though all my science teachers and professors would really be disappointed that I am so incompetent that I'm being rejected. )

I'm not rejecting you. I'm disagreeing with you, and I'm trying to correct some errors you make. That's not rejection.

Foxfyre wrote:

But I also reject the notion that it is illogical and should be dismissed as ID-iocy just because nobody knows how to prove it now, and I reject that it is improper for science teachers to allow it as one of those unknown possibilities that we can't yet prove. To me it is a valid theory and I think only closed minds don't allow for the possibility.

The problem isn't that Intelligent design cannot yet be proven. The problem is that it's not a refutable hypothesis. There is no conceiveable set of circumstances that would cause Mr. Demski to say "okay, this proves my theory wrong." A theory that can't be refuted is unscientific.

A theory that can't be refuted is unscientific.

The Popperian criterion, however, excludes from the domain of science not unfalsifiable statements but only whole theories which contain no falsifiable statements; thus it leaves us with the Duhemian problem of what constitutes a 'whole theory' as well as the problem of what makes a statement 'meaningful'.

Whereas Popper was concerned in the main with the logic of science, Thomas Kuhn's influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions examined in detail the history of science. Kuhn argued that scientists work within a conceptual paradigm that determines the way in which they view the world. Scientists will go to great length to defend their paradigm against falsification, by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses to existing theories. Changing one's 'paradigm' is not easy, and only through some pain and angst does science (at the level of the individual scientist) change paradigms

......it is wrong to say that testing it and proving or disproving it will never be possible.

Foxfyre wrote:

......it is wrong to say that testing it and proving or disproving it will never be possible.

Lack of knowledge is not an argument for supporting the implausible.

Nor was splitting the atom or breaking the sound barrier or space travel or sending pictures through the air a refutable hypothesis until somebody figured out how to do it.

Thomas wrote:

A theory that can't be refuted is unscientific.

If you are talking about falsifiability as per the philosophy of science, it appears that only some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that no empirical hypothesis, proposition, or theory can be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of a contrary case. I'm not certain this makes the case of falsifiability unassailable.

Well it's good to know that I misinterpret the language of science.

In my lifetime I've seen the atom split, something that once was considered impossible by the scientific community,

I've seen the sound barrier broken, something the scientific community once considered so dangerous that nobody would ever survive it

I've seen space travel and men walk on the moon, something the scientific community once considered impossible

and almost every day or at least frequently you see something that the scientific community once delcared to be fact to be effectively disproved

I wonder if Aristotle and Copernicus cannot be considered 'scientists' because they were so widely discredited and condemned for their views even to the point that they were excommunicated by the Church?

The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History Sentence (22 June 1633)
We: [names of ten Cardinals]


We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the world, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. Consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated by the sacred canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents. We are willing to absolve you from them provided that first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in front of us you abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the manner and form we will prescribe to you.

Furthermore, so that this serious and pernicious error and transgression of yours does not remain completely unpunished, and so that you will be more cautious in the future and an example for others to abstain from similar crimes, we order that the book Dialogue by Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict.

We condemn you to formal imprisonment in this Holy Office at our pleasure. As a salutary penance we impose on you to recite the seven penitential Psalms once a week for the next three years. And we reserve the authority to moderate, change, or condone wholly or in part the above-mentioned penalties and penances.

This we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, order, and reserve by this or any other better manner or form that we reasonably can or shall think of.

So we the undersigned Cardinals pronounce:

[signature of seven Cardinals]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galileo's Abjuration (22 June 1633)
I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, seventy years of age, arraigned personally for judgment, kneeling before you Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals Inquisitors-General against heretical depravity in all of Christendom, having before my eyes and touching with my hands the Holy Gospels, swear that I have always believed, I believe now, and with God's help I will believe in the future all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church holds, preaches, and teaches. However, whereas, after having been judicially instructed with injunction by the Holy Office to abandon completely the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and does not move and the earth is not the center of the world and moves, and not to hold defend, or teach this false doctrine in any way whatever, orally or in writing; and after having been notified that this doctrine is contrary to Holy Scripture; I wrote and published a book in which I treat of this already condemned doctrine and adduce very effective reasons in its favor, without refuting them in any way; therefore, I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed that the sun is the center of the world and motionless and the earth is not the center and moves.

Therefore, desiring to removed from the minds of Your Eminences and every faithful Christian this vehement suspicion, rightly conceived against me, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies, and in general each and every other error, heresy, and sect contrary to the Holy Church; and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, orally or in writing, anything which might cause a similar suspicion about me; on the contrary, if I should come to know any heretic or anyone suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I happen to be.

Furthermore, I swear and promise to comply with and observe completely all the penances which have been or will be imposed upon me by this Holy Office; and should I fail to keep any of these promises and oaths, which God forbid, I submit myself to all the penalties and punishments imposed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other particular and general laws against similar delinquents. So help me God and these Holy Gospels of His, which I touch with my hands.

I, the above-mentioned Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and obliged myself as above; and in witness of the truth I have signed with my own hand the present document of abjuration and have recited it word for word in Rome, at the convent of the Minerva, this twenty-second day of June 1633.

I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above, by my own hand.

But as ignorant as I surely am regarding science,

at least compared to Steve and Timber, I at least have an open mind that allows for possibilities that what cannot now be tested or proved will at some time be tested and proved. And I think there's just a lot of science out there that folks haven't yet thought about.

Nevertheless I will not attempt to argue the point further.

Foxfyre wrote:

Nor was splitting the atom or breaking the sound barrier or space travel or sending pictures through the air a refutable hypothesis until somebody figured out how to do it.

Not true. Hundred years ago, people could and did make statements like "people can/can't break the sound barrier within 100 years" or "people can/can't fly to the moon within 100 years". These were all refutable hypotheses. They could all have been right or wrong. Importantly, though, it was clear in 1907 what facts could disprove these hypotheses, should they be wrong. This is what makes these hypotheses scientific.

Compare that to "Living structures are so complicated it's inconceivable that they could have evolved. Therefore they must have been made by an intelligent designer". First of all, it's rotten logic. Just because Mr. Demski and Mr. Behe can't imagine how something could have evolved, that doesn't mean it's inconceivable, much less impossible. And even if it was impossible, it wouldn't be evidence for Intelligent Design. It would only be evolution. The problem with Intelligent Design isn't that it's wrong. The problem is that it's too mushy a concept to even be wrong.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

I'll try to catch up tomorrow.

Foxfyre wrote:

Well it's good to know that I misinterpret the language of science.

Better would be that you, understanding and accepting that you misinterpret the language of science, take steps to remedy that failing..

Quote:

In my lifetime I've seen the atom split, something that once was considered impossible by the scientific community,

Nonsense. From the time it was determined the atom was not a single, unitary, indivisible entity, a primary thrust of atomic research was to devise a means of "splitting" the atom into its individual components. While there was dispute pertaining to the requisite methodology, there was no dispute that at least theoretically it could be done, and in point of fact, recognizing that the atom was composed of constituant sub-entities was the first step in the process which led to the splitting of the atom, and to all which has proceeded therefrom.

Quote:

I've seen the sound barrier broken, something the scientific community once considered so dangerous that nobody would ever survive it

Nonsense - popular, and uninformed, opinion may have endorsed that bit of misinformation, however, science devoted itself to getting the job done.

Quote:

I've seen space travel and men walk on the moon, something the scientific community once considered impossible

Nonsense - again, while dispute pertaining to methodology was broadspread, science set itself to getting the job done.

Quote:

and almost every day or at least frequently you see something that the scientific community once delcared to be fact to be effectively disproved

I submit 1) that such is not the case and 2) that you can produce no evidence - not claim, not opinion, not interpretation, but actual evidence - to the contrary. Propositions, postulates, hypotheses, and theories may be - frequently are - refined, revised, or even rejected, pursuant to new data or improved analysis, but no "fact" - not proposition, postulate, hypothesis, or theory, but "fact" - established by modern science as "fact" ever has been "disproved".

Quote:

I wonder if Aristotle and Copernicus cannot be considered 'scientists' because they were so widely discredited and condemned for their views even to the point that they were excommunicated by the Church?

That statement betrays your misunderstanding; first, Aristotle greatly predates "The Church", and in point of fact from the time of the earliest Church Fathers, Aristotelian logic and rhetoric was then and hence to these times has been employed to define, establish, and put forth the Church's propositions. Never was Copernicus excommunicated, and though it is true that in 1616, nearly 75 years following his death, his works were by The Church declared "Forbidden", at issue only were the few sentences (9 in number) in those works asserting the "certainty" of heliocentrism. In 1620, assertion of "certainty" essentially being replaced by "apparently" or cognates thereof, the thereby "revised" works of Copernicus otherwise were free of Church sanction, and were published widely without Church objection. In 1758, The Church withdrew all objection to the publication of Copernicus' work in any form.

Neither was Gallileo excommunicated;

Quote:

The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History Sentence (22 June 1633)
We: [names of ten Cardinals]


We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the world, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. Consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated by the sacred canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents. We are willing to absolve you from them provided that first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in front of us you abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the manner and form we will prescribe to you.

Furthermore, so that this serious and pernicious error and transgression of yours does not remain completely unpunished, and so that you will be more cautious in the future and an example for others to abstain from similar crimes, we order that the book Dialogue by Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict.

We condemn you to formal imprisonment in this Holy Office at our pleasure. As a salutary penance we impose on you to recite the seven penitential Psalms once a week for the next three years. And we reserve the authority to moderate, change, or condone wholly or in part the above-mentioned penalties and penances.

This we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, order, and reserve by this or any other better manner or form that we reasonably can or shall think of.

So we the undersigned Cardinals pronounce:

[signature of seven Cardinals]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galileo's Abjuration (22 June 1633)
I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, seventy years of age, arraigned personally for judgment, kneeling before you Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals Inquisitors-General against heretical depravity in all of Christendom, having before my eyes and touching with my hands the Holy Gospels, swear that I have always believed, I believe now, and with God's help I will believe in the future all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church holds, preaches, and teaches. However, whereas, after having been judicially instructed with injunction by the Holy Office to abandon completely the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and does not move and the earth is not the center of the world and moves, and not to hold defend, or teach this false doctrine in any way whatever, orally or in writing; and after having been notified that this doctrine is contrary to Holy Scripture; I wrote and published a book in which I treat of this already condemned doctrine and adduce very effective reasons in its favor, without refuting them in any way; therefore, I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed that the sun is the center of the world and motionless and the earth is not the center and moves.

Therefore, desiring to removed from the minds of Your Eminences and every faithful Christian this vehement suspicion, rightly conceived against me, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies, and in general each and every other error, heresy, and sect contrary to the Holy Church; and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, orally or in writing, anything which might cause a similar suspicion about me; on the contrary, if I should come to know any heretic or anyone suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I happen to be.

Furthermore, I swear and promise to comply with and observe completely all the penances which have been or will be imposed upon me by this Holy Office; and should I fail to keep any of these promises and oaths, which God forbid, I submit myself to all the penalties and punishments imposed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other particular and general laws against similar delinquents. So help me God and these Holy Gospels of His, which I touch with my hands.

I, the above-mentioned Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and obliged myself as above; and in witness of the truth I have signed with my own hand the present document of abjuration and have recited it word for word in Rome, at the convent of the Minerva, this twenty-second day of June 1633.

I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above, by my own hand.

Quote:

Though his works, as and for much the same reasons, those of Copernicus, were for a while proscribed, it was for disputing the truth of The Book of Job, threreby challenging Aristotilean cosmology, that Gallileo was convicted by the Italian Inquisition not of formal heresy but of "Offenses Contrary to The Faith", a lesser charge, for which he was sentenced to what in actual effect and practice amounted to a very loose sort of house arrest. During his "confinement", which lasted until his death some 8 years later, he was not denied the Sacraments, and he was buried on consecrated ground. In 1741, nearly a century following Gallileo's 1642 death, Pope Benedict V formally "rehabillitated" Gallileo, setting aside his sentence (though issuing no explicit formal apology) and specifically authorizing thereforward unrestricted publication of Gallileo's works. Pope John Paul II in 1992 pronounced a formal apology to Galileo, something not included in, but in no way altering, Pope Benedict V's pronouncement.

I don't believe that I mentioned Galileo, but its nice of you to show off a lot of nice cut and pastes re that.

Quote:

Quote:

But as ignorant as I surely am regarding science,

Among other things, including as just demonstrated, history.

As you wish.

Quote:

Quote:

at least compared to Steve and Timber, I at least have an open mind that allows for possibilities that what cannot now be tested or proved will at some time be tested and proved. And I think there's just a lot of science out there that folks haven't yet thought about.

There's a big difference between "open mind" and "uninformed, uncritical, unthinking credulity"

I accept that as your point of view.

Quote:

Quote:

Nevertheless I will not attempt to argue the point further.

Perhaps all for the best - pending broadening of your education sufficiently as to provide working familiarity with the salient points at discussion, at least.

And thank you very much for your warm, cordial, unjudgmental manner in informing me I'm a complete idiot. I'm sure I should appreciate it.

Anyway, I tried to leave earlier and I'll follow my own advice in doing so at this time.

Have a great evening.

The problem isn't that Intelligent design cannot yet be proven. The problem is that it's not a refutable hypothesis. There is no conceiveable set of circumstances that would cause Mr. Demski to say "okay, this proves my theory wrong." A theory that can't be refuted is unscientific.

Chumly wrote:

Thomas wrote:

A theory that can't be refuted is unscientific.

If you are talking about falsifiability as per the philosophy of science, it appears that only some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that no empirical hypothesis, proposition, or theory can be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of a contrary case. I'm not certain this makes the case of falsifiability unassailable.

Popper's hypothesis is well-accepted among scientists, and your Wikipedia quote is consistent with it. Scientists publish falsifiable hypotheses all the time, as Popper thinks they should. At the same time, as Kuhn notes, they get attached to their hypotheses and make up arguments why they haven't actually been falsified. One doesn't exclude the other.

Chumly wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

......it is wrong to say that testing it and proving or disproving it will never be possible.

Lack of knowledge is not an argument for supporting the implausible.

Nor is lack of knowledge an argument for something being implausible.

In other words "if all were known then all would be known" is a circular and humorous claim. Not that I mind good humors!

ID can easily be refuted. Would not the discovery of a mechanism that would provide for the "evolution" of a flagellum suffice?