Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Quote:

Stating that there isn't a designer is, at the least, backed up by the scientific notion of parsimony: for all intents and purposes, lack of proof is proof of lack.

Not for me.

Quote:

The truth is not an issue of functionality. Even if it were, science is still more useful than ID/creationism.

In human societies truth is an issue of functionality. The art of the possible.

And more useful to whom? And it isn't an either/or question. They both exist and interact. Without belief of some sort the interaction vanishes.

Quote:

Humans do not have a "function",

Everything has a function.

Quote:

That's metaphysics, not biology, unless there's some profound biological difference between us and the other animals which is a difference of kind, not degree.

I hit on the ability to take the piss out of ourselves, which Denis Potter dramatised on the gallows, as indeed did Flaubert with my namesake, as a difference of kind and not of degree. Explaining that is probably metaphysical if not downright mystical. The biologists will never explain it.
They take themselves seriously anyway so they couldn't.

Quote:

I'm still not seeing how Christianity is the sole environment under which this can come to pass

You will have to read Spengler then. It isn't any good taking any notice of fm on Spengler. Knocking him justifies his not taking the trouble over it. And it does take some trouble.

Quote:

I'm familiar with Veblen's work. It's completely irrelevant to my claim, though, which is that there are many non-Christian locations with decidedly scientific groundings.

Yes- but they grew out of Christianity. Do you think they would exist without the Christian soil.

What does "familiar" mean?

What I am saying that you guys won't acknowledge is that evolution itself may be a process of I.D. And the evidence for that exists in observation of the perfection and efficiency in the way that things have evolved as well as the gaps in knowledge, the inconsistency at times, and the unexplainable. Couple that with one's personal experience of God and for that person, it becomes something more than a matter of faith.

Religion should be taught as religion.

spendius wrote:

Quote:

Stating that there isn't a designer is, at the least, backed up by the scientific notion of parsimony: for all intents and purposes, lack of proof is proof of lack.

Not for me.

Then you're committing a logical fallacy.

Well, what is this parsimony thing, anyway?

The principle of parsimony is defined as "a scientific rule that states that if there exists two answers to a problem or a question, and if, for one answer to be true, well-established laws of logic and science must be re-written, ignored, or suspended in order to allow it to be true, and for the other answer to be true no such accommodation need be made, then the simpler of the two answers is much more likely to be correct."1 Put a simpler way, parsimony is "a principle that states that the simplest explanation that explains the greatest number of observations is preferred to more complex explanations".2

In probability theory, credence means a subjective estimate of probability........

No thanks, I don't read pseudo-intellectuals and continental "philosophers". I'd sooner waste my time reading nonsense at anus.com than opening up anything by Spengler.

What I am saying that you guys won't acknowledge is that evolution itself may be a process of I.D. And the evidence for that exists in observation of the perfection and efficiency in the way that things have evolved as well as the gaps in knowledge

wandeljw wrote:

Religion should be taught as religion.

I'm not aware of the teaching of fortune telling, or taro card reading, or astrology or trolls & gnomes within the public school curricula yet they're all very popular.

Thus why should religion be given any more credence in the realm of the public school curricula than other folklore?

Foxfyre wrote:

What I am saying that you guys won't acknowledge is that evolution itself may be a process of I.D. And the evidence for that exists in observation of the perfection and efficiency in the way that things have evolved as well as the gaps in knowledge, the inconsistency at times, and the unexplainable. Couple that with one's personal experience of God and for that person, it becomes something more than a matter of faith.

ID isn't testable, naturalistic, or falsifiable. Can anyone provide evidence that a designer must have had his hand in some part of evolution without violating the naturalism criterion? Again, you can interpret evidence to mean any conclusion, including that a designer had his hand in the whole thing (though, presumably, a very incompetent one - the human body contains design flaws that would shame a first-year engineering student) - but only a select few of those conclusions will be scientific. ID is not and, thus, it conflicts with science, if not on an empirical ground, then on a philosophical one.

Most sexologists are still taken up with a battle against the forces of darkness. Mary S. Calderone, one of the founders of SIECUS after eleven years as medical director of Planned Parenthood--World Population, sees her opponent very clearly:

"Historically, the prime contender for control of the sexuality of a person by an outside agency is,and continues to be, religion. Although human sexuality has been a dominant theme in the art and literature of most cultures, control (meaning repression) of this alleged "rampant" and "uncontrollable" yet universal factor in human life has been held by most religions to be necessary in order to restrict its use to its so-called primary, or even sole, function, procreation."

The social function of religion has been supplanted by a secular mechanism for behavioural control and Dr Calderone and her cohorts are given public office, paid stipends and sent hither and yon to complain about its enemies in the name of freedom and love.

Dr Calderone is doubtless right in protesting against the sexual repression exercised by parents and institutions but when she speaks of control of sexuality, she immediately raises the disturbing possibilty that a better way of controlling is not to drive underground and out of sight by repression but to draw out and manipulate in the guise of education, first, and then, treatment. The authority of teachers and doctors is in our time as sacrosanct as ever religious dogma was. Doubtless the sex educators are all honourable men and women and insofar as the present state of sexual mores may seem to them freer than the one they grew up with, they may be champions of freedom but to some young people growing up in the morality of sexual health, this freedom is already felt as servitude.

A problem at its genesis
(Lee Cullum, Dallas Morning News Opinion Section, April 4, 2007)

Intelligent design has a fundamental problem: Its proponents refuse to understand who and what they are. Hence, they have created an awkward situation for Southern Methodist University, where a conference called "Darwin vs. Design" is scheduled for McFarlin Auditorium on April 13 and 14. Some scientists at the university have questioned, justifiably, whether this is an appropriate place for a gathering as intellectually confused as this one.

Those who favor intelligent design seek to prove that evolution is impossible because the complexity of human systems is beyond the capacity of the Darwinian process to accomplish. Hence, humankind must have been created by a supreme designer.

Yet they have not toppled Darwin or his theory - and show no signs of coming close to that.

Their mistake is presenting themselves as a science and Charles Darwin as their natural enemy when, in fact, they are arguing from a religious base.

The principal funder of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, sponsor of this confab along with the Christian Legal Society at SMU's Dedman School of Law, is Howard Ahmanson, who long has shown interest in conservative religion.

If advocates of intelligent design would assemble a conference with their own speakers and professors versus, say, Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and an evolutionary biologist, that would be a solid and fascinating program.

But putting intelligent design in opposition to Darwin is like offering a program on faith healing versus oncology. Faith healing is worth discussing, but not as a scientific alternative to medical treatment - though some may shun doctors and choose that path.

Science has its own limitations. It need not be regarded as the only avenue to truth. Also, truth and proof are not always the same thing.

Sharon Turner, an Episcopal priest, calls the imperative to prove up Intelligent Design the last gasp of the Enlightenment, when religious certainty gave way to the experiments of science. But, she added, there is knowledge that is far deeper than the literal or the scientific.

What she understands is this: For all the gains of the scientific method, it did limit the life of the spirit for those unable to imagine more broadly.

Perhaps we were better off when science and philosophy were part of the same discipline. Aristotle, remember, formed his categories of plants and animals with all the assurance of both persuasions.

Certainly Leonardo da Vinci embraced the two worlds as one, which may be the main reason for his current popularity. It did not occur to anyone then that they could be separate.

Perhaps that's what the Discovery Institute is trying to achieve - a return to unity of knowledge. But to do this, adherents of this effort are now the Peter of religion, denying it at every turn.

Sen. John McCain gave the keynote speech at a gathering of the Discovery Institute earlier this year. Several months before, he told a newspaper that he happens to "believe in evolution" but that "Americans should be exposed to every point of view." Should intelligent design "be taught in as a science class?" he asked. "Probably not."

Don't count on Mr. McCain to express that view between now and the 2008 election, but he is right. Intelligent design is not science, and SMU, though unassailable in its defense of free speech, needs to rethink its policy regarding future use of its facilities and their implied prestige.

The university does not have a First Amendment obligation to provide a venue to intellectually suspect arguments, unless they are framed in a way that does not violate settled history (the Holocaust) or settled science. Care must be taken, of course, in discerning which bodies of knowledge are rooted in fact and which are not. But an institution devoted to the life of the mind does have a right and a duty to make those choices.

A problem at its genesis
(Lee Cullum, Dallas Morning News Opinion Section, April 4, 2007)

Intelligent design has a fundamental problem: Its proponents refuse to understand who and what they are. Hence, they have created an awkward situation for Southern Methodist University, where a conference called "Darwin vs. Design" is scheduled for McFarlin Auditorium on April 13 and 14. Some scientists at the university have questioned, justifiably, whether this is an appropriate place for a gathering as intellectually confused as this one.

Those who favor intelligent design seek to prove that evolution is impossible because the complexity of human systems is beyond the capacity of the Darwinian process to accomplish. Hence, humankind must have been created by a supreme designer.

Yet they have not toppled Darwin or his theory - and show no signs of coming close to that.

Their mistake is presenting themselves as a science and Charles Darwin as their natural enemy when, in fact, they are arguing from a religious base.

The principal funder of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, sponsor of this confab along with the Christian Legal Society at SMU's Dedman School of Law, is Howard Ahmanson, who long has shown interest in conservative religion.

If advocates of intelligent design would assemble a conference with their own speakers and professors versus, say, Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and an evolutionary biologist, that would be a solid and fascinating program.

But putting intelligent design in opposition to Darwin is like offering a program on faith healing versus oncology. Faith healing is worth discussing, but not as a scientific alternative to medical treatment - though some may shun doctors and choose that path.

Science has its own limitations. It need not be regarded as the only avenue to truth. Also, truth and proof are not always the same thing.

Sharon Turner, an Episcopal priest, calls the imperative to prove up Intelligent Design the last gasp of the Enlightenment, when religious certainty gave way to the experiments of science. But, she added, there is knowledge that is far deeper than the literal or the scientific.

What she understands is this: For all the gains of the scientific method, it did limit the life of the spirit for those unable to imagine more broadly.

Perhaps we were better off when science and philosophy were part of the same discipline. Aristotle, remember, formed his categories of plants and animals with all the assurance of both persuasions.

Certainly Leonardo da Vinci embraced the two worlds as one, which may be the main reason for his current popularity. It did not occur to anyone then that they could be separate.

Perhaps that's what the Discovery Institute is trying to achieve - a return to unity of knowledge. But to do this, adherents of this effort are now the Peter of religion, denying it at every turn.

Sen. John McCain gave the keynote speech at a gathering of the Discovery Institute earlier this year. Several months before, he told a newspaper that he happens to "believe in evolution" but that "Americans should be exposed to every point of view." Should intelligent design "be taught in as a science class?" he asked. "Probably not."

Don't count on Mr. McCain to express that view between now and the 2008 election, but he is right. Intelligent design is not science, and SMU, though unassailable in its defense of free speech, needs to rethink its policy regarding future use of its facilities and their implied prestige.

The university does not have a First Amendment obligation to provide a venue to intellectually suspect arguments, unless they are framed in a way that does not violate settled history (the Holocaust) or settled science. Care must be taken, of course, in discerning which bodies of knowledge are rooted in fact and which are not. But an institution devoted to the life of the mind does have a right and a duty to make those choices.

What she understands is this: For all the gains of the scientific method, it did limit the life of the spirit for those unable to imagine more broadly.

..."and all the priests, unable to console the sorrows of the world, point to the scientists and say,"THERE IS THE ENEMY OF OUR WITHERING SOULS""...

You know who said that??

and all the priests, unable to console the sorrows of the world, point to the scientists and say,"THERE IS THE ENEMY OF OUR WITHERING SOULS""...

Chumly wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Religion should be taught as religion.

I'm not aware of the teaching of fortune telling, or taro card reading, or astrology or trolls & gnomes within the public school curricula yet they're all very popular.

Thus why should religion be given any more credence in the realm of the public school curricula than other folklore?

In U.S. secondary education, classes on world religions or comparative religion are offered as "electives". In the UK, religion education classes are mandatory.

What is Canada's policy on teaching religion, Chumly?

Canada's approach to religious education has sometimes been criticized as inconsistent. Catholic education public funding is mandated by various sections of the Constitution Act, 1867 and reaffirmed by Section Twenty-nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. More recently however, with a growing level of multiculturalism, particularly in Ontario, debate has emerged as to whether publicly funded religious education for one group is permissible. Newfoundland withdrew Catholic funding in 1996, via legislation that required approval from the Canadian House of Commons. Quebec abolished religious education funded by the state through the Education Act, 1998 which took effect on July 1st of that same year.

Different Faith, Same Struggle
(John Gray, New Scientist, February 24, 2007)

After a century or more of keeping out of one another's hair, science and religion are once again locked in conflict. The claim that science is the only reliable route to understanding the world is as fiercely disputed today as it was in Victorian times, except that today's standard of debate has been notably unimpressive. If advocates of creationism or intelligent design lack intellectual rigour, then the militant Darwinists who attack religion while knowing virtually nothing of the immense varieties of religious belief and experience are no better.

With both sides ignorant of how science and religion are understood in various traditions, public dialogue has been narrow and parochial. Taner Edis - a physicist working in America, who was born and raised in Turkey and whose early views were shaped by Ataturkist secularism - aims to rescue the debate from insularity by showing how it has developed within Islam. In doing so he has produced one of the few recent books that truly illuminates the troubled relationship between science and religion.

An Illusion of Harmony is a rich mix of intellectual history, philosophical reasoning and personal insight, which takes as its starting point the paucity of scientific discovery in Islamic cultures in recent centuries. Is this a consequence of political repression and economic underdevelopment, or has Islam itself been a factor in holding back scientific progress?

Edis argues plausibly that for Islam accommodating modern science is intrinsically problematic since it is a text-centred creed in which the Quran is the direct and infallible word of God. Islamic thought contains many disparate strands, but all face the fundamental problem of reconciling the modern belief that the world is governed by knowable natural laws with the religious belief that the world is a product of divine omnipotence.

Of course this difficulty is not confined to Islam, but plagues monotheism in all its forms. Looking back as heirs of the European Enlightenment, many people see western Christianity as hospitable to science by virtue of having absorbed Greek traditions of rationalism. But as Edis shrewdly observes, "Greek rationalism very often conceived of reason as a kind of supernatural illumination providing knowledge of higher realms of truth" - a mystical view that was shared as much by Muslim thinkers as it was by Christians. It is not an absence of rationalism that has stood in the way of science, but rather the strength of the belief that nature is divinely created.

Just as it has in the US, fundamentalist resistance to Darwinism has produced an efflorescence of pseudoscience in Islamic culture. Edis provides fascinating examples of recent Islamic theories of "guided evolution", born of the pressures of modernisation. Science has become the key to prosperity and success in war, earning it too much cultural prestige to be attacked outright, so instead religious thinkers try to ape it by developing ersatz sciences that pose no threat to faith. The conflict between science and religion is not resolved by pseudoscience, but merely evaded.

Any belief system in which human agency is central is bound to be at odds with what Edis describes as the "radically unanthropomorphic" world view suggested by contemporary science. Islamic cultures are no different from the Christian cultures in their struggle to cope with the challenge of science. The true conflict may not be between science and religion, but between science and monotheist faiths in which humans have a privileged place in the world.

Question: wouldn't it be fair to say that it's only a logical fallacy if you can aptly demonstrate that the mechanisms by which you assess this lack of proof are up to the task of doing so?

I don't specifically refer to a designer, but to the principle you embrace i.e. no particle accelerators = no modern high-energy physics.

Question: can parsimony alone provide sufficient credence for modern high-energy particle physics given, at a minimum, its inherent complexity let alone its apparent challenges to (what were once) more established thought?

I'm not sure I'm as sanguine as you appear to be about the efficacy of the scientific notion of parsimony alone within the context of this here post at least.

Quote:

Well, what is this parsimony thing, anyway?

The principle of parsimony is defined as "a scientific rule that states that if there exists two answers to a problem or a question, and if, for one answer to be true, well-established laws of logic and science must be re-written, ignored, or suspended in order to allow it to be true, and for the other answer to be true no such accommodation need be made, then the simpler of the two answers is much more likely to be correct."1 Put a simpler way, parsimony is "a principle that states that the simplest explanation that explains the greatest number of observations is preferred to more complex explanations".2

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/parsimony.htm

Quote:

In probability theory, credence means a subjective estimate of probability........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credence

And you must be bloody joking. Science will have you living so long you'll look like a prune that's been withered in the desert sun for a few months. With the young working classes at the base of the growing upside down pyramid.

I wouldn't mind betting it was priests who started popularising knives and forks to bring a touch of decorum to that process which science has no real alternative to describing as munching your way through the nutrient bed like monkeys do.

Science does not "reduce" anything to a devalued level, and it does not prescribe that its findings ought to be used in some way.

I was using the word "scientist" in the way it is generally used on this thread. When in Rome and all that.