Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

The tenets of Occam's Razor do not apply to your claim that you don't have to discredit ID in order to accept evolution.

Occam's Razor asserts that the explanation of evolution should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions.

ID makes no difference in the observable predictions of the theory of evolution.

Nor did I say that it did. Some of you need to bone up on inductive reasoning as well as deductive reasoning.



I do not attempt to explain evolution at all nor was I applying Occam's Razor to any explanation of evolution. I was applying it to my own debate style.



True. Nor do the observable prediction of the Theory of Evolution have any bearing whatsoever on whether ID is a credible theory.

Chum-

Professor Marilyn McCord Adams of the University of California has this to say about Billy Ockham-

".......he denies that there is any sine qua non causality in nature, and finds it metaphysically impossible that regularities in nature be drastically rearranged, although natural functioning can be obstructed by God and creatures alike."

I think he might well have supported Foxy's general position, were he able, rather than your's.

You have probably been reading about the pop version which is quite easy to understand.

I don't believe anyone could become as famous as old Ockie, they named the dart's distance mark after him and that's serious fame, by writing such simple and obvious stuff as-

Froggy does that when he goes a courtin'.

I do not present ID in any way that can be considered scientific. In fact, my belief is that God is the author of science and therefore all scientific processes are components of ID, but that cannot be proved scientifically at least with the science we have to use now.

Is your intent to use the thread to discredit Dr. Bene's hypothesis? If so then I am out of line bringing additional components into it. No biggie either way.

Foxy wrote-



I've been giving them nods and winks in that direction for what must be getting on for 2 years.

I didn't like to put it quite so bluntly to an American audience noted for its propensity to indignation when its educational, or other, qualifications are called into question and especially when it has seen a lot of fast draw movies during its formative years the general effect of which Freud maintained one never entirely throws off.

It's okay. A lot of us learned that fast draw with sawdust pistols and didn't quite progress to the real thing.

How's the subtlety thing working out for you though? I find almost any tactic is sufficient to produce ample indignation around here.

You are breaking my heart, foxfyre.

Actually, your position is very close to spendi's position. Spendi mainly asserts that a religious viewpoint needs to be maintained and science is of lesser importance.

I started this thread 2 years ago with an open mind about whether ID can be considered "scientific". My main concern was to determine whether it can be appropriately included in science education. I have since learned that ID only has the "trappings" of science and is essentially religious.

It is an "interesting" question after wandel's thread runs now nearly exactly two years :wink:

Hello foxfyre & spendi,

you two amuse me having never failed to supply logical fallacies galore. I hope the tooth fairy and the flying pigs are keeping good company with ID, at least within the realms of your imaginations.

What evidence do you have to refute the contention that ID was not initiated by intelligent designers from Uranus?

You're getting warm Chum.

Chum wrote-



I can't speak for Foxy, it would be impertinent, but rather than simply saying that, which is meaningless as it stands with no evidence offered, could you provide me with an example where I have fallen in such an error. If I make an error I prefer it to be pointed out to me. Some people of medium educational attainment are often too polite to do that and the error is perpetuated until they get fed up with it and that is not to my taste. I will agree that it causes me not get on with the majority of people, who are by definition "medium" (100 IQ), but those I do get on with I get on with like a house on fire.

Your claim "an American audience noted for its propensity to indignation" is a logical fallacy. It's called the straw man.

Your claim "I think he might well have supported Foxy's general position, were he able, rather than your's" is a logical fallacy. It's called an appeal to authority.

As for non sequiturs, that would be any number.

Shirley you're not surprised?

Chum wrote-



It has a world renowned reputation for just such a propensity which is why their best writers have no sense of humour. In my own experience too. Isn't indignation a prime cause of divorce and gun crime and such like? No straw man I can see. I can see however another assertion.

Actually Chum- I was thinking in the bath that evolution theory could not possibly countenance the possibility of a female creature perpetrating a logical fallacy. It would throw all the natural selection idea overboard surely? Least of all a refined member of the most refined species known to science. You would be getting dangerously close to young Germaine Greer's famous proposition when she lit the touch-paper of her rocketing career.

Ladies don't do logical fallacies.

I think I've been consistent in the time I've posted on this thread that ID should not be included in science education in any way. I have further stated that a science teacher would not be obligated to bring up the subject of ID, but if queried by a student, he would not be incorrect in stating that this is one of many theories for the origin and development of the universe as we know it. He should then further say that it can not be proved nor disproved using any known scientific means so it is not included in the science we will study. In this way a teacher would not need to corrupt the science curriculum but also would not undermine a student's faith or belief.

I don't really know how close my position is with Spendi's position other than he is one of the few posting on the thread who seems to have an open mind to all possibilities. He is one who seems to understand that I have no problem reconciling natural selection with ID. In fact, I believe natural selection is likely included in ID, but we still can't prove it with known science.

The one thing that mystifies me is why some of the others work so hard to discredit ID when they correctly acknowledge that it cannot be proved or disproved scientifically.

Spendi writes


Not that we'll ever admit anyway.

foxy. Actually Im having quite a laugh at the fact that some of you havent even learned the rules of the IDers from this very thread and wish to start up a world as if they just discovered it.

I will not bother to comment on past threads between you and spendi, thats a love fest borne out of thinking that begins with a premise and then searches for supportive data (or no data as the case may be). As an advocate of ID you seem to have a debate style that wants to occupy both sides of a road.


However, heres a point you asked. The IDer should be able to make a testable prediction. An ID advocate must predict (by the very rules posed by Mike Behe) NO INTERMEDIATE FORMS OF ANIMALS (or plants) should be found (think "sudden appearance and irreducible complexity) These diverse intermediate forms that cannot exist should also NOT be allowed varying functionalities (think the mousetrap joke of behe) After all, each such case of intermediate forms with diverse functionalities is evidence against irreducible complexity and or sudden appearance, and could thus deny the existence of a designer.
The presence of intermediate forms or what the old neoDarwinians used to acll the "preadaptations" could not occur if ID were a real science.

Not only is it not able to make a prediction accurately, its entire basis is found to be false.

As far as your comment to wandel about whethre this is about a single scientist. In many cases thats a fact. There are few real workers in the ID field. Its like Philosophy. Its a language with no working parts. Mike Behe is there, hes a nice guy , hes bothered to take on the bulk of conventional science in order to advance ID as a workable hypotheses, and over and over again, hes been shown to be dead wrong.
There is , so-far , no credible evidence supporting ID (a lot of that is because IDers are a paranoid lot), if they do some actual science, I feel that theyre afraid they may not find any supportive evidence. So , your "seeing no conflict between science and ID" is charmingly naive but merely to accept that and let it go with even a shrug is illogical. When I brought up Ken Miller, you bit nicely . Dr Millers personal beliefs are that he has his own personal God that rules in one area and has no meddling permision on the natural side. His God didnt even set rules for nature to follow, because He is so transcendent. I give Miller his due but neither do I find the need for a supernatural crutch which is all that this ID and Creation crap is about. If the natural world isnt as amazing on its own, and you need to create a cosmic carpenter, well, I think that the burden of proof isnt upon me to prove otherwise.
When you can cobble up a decent argument (or spendi can quit his obfuscation through arcane refernce) maybe you can use some of your talentsto help out poor Dr Behe and Phil Johnson and the fraudulent Bill Dembski and Dr meyers. I wont hold my breath though cause Ive seen nothing new in their quivers for about 15 years


Applications v Implications.--I heard a student seminar today about the size of our genomic data base since 1986 and its implications to evolutionary theory. If we look at a quaternary combinationof the base pairs of DNA as one byte, weve grown from having a DNA profile of about 1KK bits in 1986 to one today where were at about 10*13 bits. Its amazing, with all that coding on so many species, that we havent managed to find the "fallacy loophole" that DNA should provide to the Creationist/IDers.
Instead, what its done , is to have provided us with a much better feel for the interweaving or the genera and higher taxa in a manner that even Darwin would have blushed at. This connective tissue of evidence has gotten so embarrasing for the IDers that theyve now got a new brand of ID,"specified complexity" where evolution has not been active and only design can explain. All the rest is available for evolution , according to Dr Dembski . The curtain gets drawn further back each year, and his areas of "specified complexity" occupy only about three remaining areas left for discussion .

That's all very well fm and however well put and however intelligent one needs to be to follow it but the question currently occupying my mind is how evolution theory explains a female animal being capable of a logical fallacy as Chum, a recidivist anti-IDer, said Foxy was.

The only explanation I can think of is that refined ladies of intelligence are not, and cannot ever be, subject to the base contingencies of evolutionary principles and therefore a qualitative difference exists of enormous proportions between their divine nature and the sordid business which, unfortunately, takes place in the animal world and which Sir David Attenborough delights in bringing to our attention.

We cannot continue using terms like "natural selection" without recognising that sperm is splattering onto a receptive egg and that the matching of the two in evolutionary terms, rather than in religious terms, is incapable of being understood unless one can get inside the brain of, say, a hen bird of paradise or, if you prefer, a lioness, and if you are up for that good luck to you and congratulations.

How do you think evolution created out of nowhere, with no intermediate forms, this gulf between our delightful companions and what you see in the zoo. One only has to notice mature intelligent ladies browsing in the lingerie department of Mark's & Spencer's, as I have, in the interest of scientific observation I might add in case anyone rushes to judgement, to see the difficulty of providing a rational explanation for such an amazing phenomenum seen from the point of view of a duck-billed platypus.

And the schools do not admit duck-billed platipussies as far as I know,

spendi, if given enough time and paper, will, eventually morph his on-screen persona into a rather sad. dyspeptic mysoginist . Therefore, purposely ignoring his recent contributions as mere "bits of undigested beef" , I shall further my discussion with foxy..

ID advocates have always complained that their concept "dont get no respect" because of some prejudice within the scientific community. Thats not so. As Sean Carroll recently said,
"we certainly like new hypotheses, but we strongly favor those that are cionsistent with well-established facts. As a result, ID does not rise anywhere near the level of theory. It has produced no insights into any scientific question and is inconsistent with rigorously tested knowledge"
As many of us infer on this thread,If it werent for IDs religious roots, theological appeal, and the fraudulent tactics of its proponents, wed probably never have heard of it. Thats the primary reason I get torqued off about how "You dont find any conflict between the scientific basis of evolution and ID". I get annoyed because, for your lack of attention to etail and your inability to devote the time to actually learn the facts of evolution and its support sciences, you lower its meaning to that of tribal ritualistic mumbo jumbo, which its not and which ID IS!.
The fact that you dont find any conflict is merely because you dont really "get it" and in order to rise a bit higher on the learning scale, you do have to put in some time on your own..
I do suggest that the number of excellent reading resources are literally exploding on line ever since Dover. The Faulty reasoning and pure hokum behind ID is being uncovered and displayed by authgors quite capable of pulling the truths out of the masses of arcane evidence. AS a start, Id reccomend the very athor I just quoted , Sean Carroll. His recent (2006) book entitled The Making of the Fittest is an excellent approachable and well written argument for the evidence that evolution leaves behind and how NO OTHER hyypotheses can fit in to explain how life arose(and is presently arising).

If it leaves you feeling empty and , as a species, spiritually unfullfilled, then read some of Ken Millers stuff on how he pictures his own God. ( His God isnt a meddler and isnt involved in the natural world, mostly because Miller can see the evidence on his own) .

You seem to be putting a lot of work into this thread, farmerman.