Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

[animal]

I agree with you said, BGood, in regards to how ID is non-scientific. One exception I do take in your last post was:

Ideas do not have to come via strict rules of the scientific method to become a theory within science. They only have to withstand critical analysis and experimentation.

I would agree with the following; "Ideas do not have to come via strict rules of the scientific method to become a theory". But as soon as you tack on "within science", the sentence then contradicts itself. All ideas (or hypotheses) must come via strict rules of the scientific method in order to be considered 'theory' in science - I can't think of a theory in science that hasn't met such standards an is an exception... Especially the latter sentence of the quote as it pertains to the process of a hypothesis (or idea) becoming a scientific theory...

[Gman]

Everytime I read posts like this I have to laugh... Sorry... Well of course ID will NEVER be accepted as real science or a legitimate theory by the publically paid scientists (or Darwinian evolutionists for that matter). Do you think that the ID advocates are surprised about this?? ID will NEVER be an accepted theory or be stamped as being "scientific". To admit that would be an extreme absurdity in the naturalistic world... Nothing new here...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

[Jad]

Hi all,

I am a Christian but I have a problem with the Intelligent Design movement. I can't speak for all of it but whenever I hear the arguments for it, be it in a forum, blog, debate, lecture or documentary I can't help but cringe at some of the arguments being used.

The problem argument constantly being stated is that design implies a designer. For example a painting implies a painter, a watch implies a watchmaker etc. The problem is that this argument was debunked well over 100 years ago by John Stuart Mill...

"Watches imply watchmakers only because we know by previous experience that watches are things made by watchmakers. In like manner one would not know that dung was something left by an animal unless he had previously observed animals deposit dung." - John Stuart Mill (1806—1873)

Now unless I have missed something why are we all still trying to flog this dead horse?

Like the Young Earth vs. Old Earth debate I don't want to limit God to either or. I don't think we should limit God's creation into only something that looks like design to you and I. Does this mean I am supporting the idea that God used chance or randomness as a process of His creation? No I'm saying God used what looks like chance and randomness (to us finite beings) as His process for creation. The people in the old testament drew straws to make decisions. Were they invoking chance to decide something? No I think they knew very well that if anyone knew who had the short straw, God did. Just because we humans have no idea what the outcome might be does not mean God doesn't. Unless of course He is not omniscient and omnipotent.

When I lay in the fields and look up at the sky on a beautiful day and I see the shape of an elephant in the clouds, it is only random to me that it appeared and I saw it. If however I had never experienced an elephant before I would have only seen clouds.

Please feel free to correct me if I have somehow missed the point of the ID argument.


_

[zoegirl]

Hi all,

I am a Christian but I have a problem with the Intelligent Design movement. I can't speak for all of it but whenever I hear the arguments for it, be it in a forum, blog, debate, lecture or documentary I can't help but cringe at some of the arguments being used.

The problem argument constantly being stated is that design implies a designer. For example a painting implies a painter, a watch implies a watchmaker etc. The problem is that this argument was debunked well over 100 years ago by John Stuart Mill...

"Watches imply watchmakers only because we know by previous experience that watches are things made by watchmakers. In like manner one would not know that dung was something left by an animal unless he had previously observed animals deposit dung." - John Stuart Mill (1806—1873)

Now unless I have missed something why are we all still trying to flog this dead horse?

Like the Young Earth vs. Old Earth debate I don't want to limit God to either or. I don't think we should limit God's creation into only something that looks like design to you and I. Does this mean I am supporting the idea that God used chance or randomness as a process of His creation? No I'm saying God used what looks like chance and randomness (to us finite beings) as His process for creation. The people in the old testament drew straws to make decisions. Were they invoking chance to decide something? No I think they knew very well that if anyone knew who had the short straw, God did. Just because we humans have no idea what the outcome might be does not mean God doesn't. Unless of course He is not omniscient and omnipotent.

When I lay in the fields and look up at the sky on a beautiful day and I see the shape of an elephant in the clouds, it is only random to me that it appeared and I saw it. If however I had never experienced an elephant before I would have only seen clouds.

Please feel free to correct me if I have somehow missed the point of the ID argument.


_

I've worried about this, too.
Gman has brought up good arguments for the fact that ID does have merits and I do think that a lot of the thoughts processes are valid. There is also a good section on the website that he has previously pointed me to that brings up some design tests.

I do agree, though, that we need to be careful assuming what God's design looks like. Could He have used processes that appear random to us? sure! Could he have used non-coding DNA regions? absolutely!

I worry also that we set up an false dichotomy. If is looks designed, there must be a designer....but what if is doesn't look designed? Doesn't exclude a designer! And unfortunately we set up a situation that allows atheists to assert a position that isnt' necessarily true.

After all, He made the processes that carve out those seemingly random rock formations out west and yet they certainly don't appear designed like the watchmaker.

[Gman]

For example a painting implies a painter, a watch implies a watchmaker etc. The problem is that this argument was debunked well over 100 years ago by John Stuart Mill...

"Watches imply watchmakers only because we know by previous experience that watches are things made by watchmakers. In like manner one would not know that dung was something left by an animal unless he had previously observed animals deposit dung." - John Stuart Mill (1806—1873)

Now unless I have missed something why are we all still trying to flog this dead horse?

First off... We can theorize all we want on how God designed things. To be honest with you I really don't know how God created things.. But what we need to understand (if we are using the Bible as our guide) is that the Bible CLEARLY states that God DID create everything that we see Genesis 1. To say that he didn't have a hand in it, which Darwinian evolution clearly states, is a total contradiction of scripture and faith... For me, as long as God gets the credit, I could really care less how he did it. He could have used Elmer's glue for that matter. So.. if someone says that science doesn't support the God of the Bible, then basically God did NOT have a hand in the creation of it. It's that simple...

ID is still in it's infant stage and is not ready for prime time, therefore for someone to automatically claim that is false is way ahead of the game.. ID basically states that a designer created it all. That is pretty much it. It does not necessarily imply a deity as some claim... It is completely neutral, leaving the individual their right to choose who that designer may be whether it be a deity such as Allah, Brahman or Yahweh. It could even be used for the ET advocates who claim that aliens designed our world.. For me, I think that an individual can decide who that designer is.. And if it is Allah or Brahman, the three stooges, or Buck Rogers, then fine... so be it. Unfortunately, we are a secular society and we can't appease everyone.

And let me make another point here.. Those who say that ID does not correctly represent the God of the Bible. How? Again what is the correct way to represent how God created our world as we know it today? And how does ID negate the God of the Bible? The Jews used many different names for God and one of them was "Elohim" or creator. How do we know how God is going to judge all of this? Is he going to pat those on the back who got the pronunciation of his name right? I don't think so.. In fact Jesus makes that claim that those who once used his name would be false teachers. More on that here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... heard.html

I'm Christian too.. And I don't think that Biblical creationism should be taught in our public school systems. Why? Because America is a secular society and we can't appease everyone or all taxpayers. Of course I would like to have Biblical creationism taught in school, but let's face it, to be fair we really can't.

[godslanguage]

"I worry also that we set up an false dichotomy. If is looks designed, there must be a designer....but what if is doesn't look designed? Doesn't exclude a designer! And unfortunately we set up a situation that allows atheists to assert a position that isnt' necessarily true."

Zoegirl, I don't think that the logic here is consistent with what ID is presenting. As creationists and for that matter: christians, we have NO DOUBT that everything is designed and created by God whether it appears to be designed or not. There is low-level to high-level design as quantified and qualified by us humans, and in the prospect of a "design" itself, humans are definitely a high-level design. That high-level design is exactly what ID tends to latch onto. The reason is because DE has ruled out design in the most extreme circumstances (in the biological sense) and promotes the view that living systems "only appear to be designed", which also means that NON-living systems "only appear to be designed" as well.

Therefore, a low-level design is NOT what would ID tend to examine, such as a tree for example or a rock. The reason is because even though IT IS designed as we believe, this is not enough on its own to present evidence for real design, although trees play a role in providing oxygen and reducing carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, performing a function such as that in the strictest sense can be alluded as a intelligent design because it serves a particular role in our atmosphere. However, ID can't amount the proportional evidence for a tree being designed to the level of undeniable design. On top of this, nobody in the ID community would worry about a tree or a rock to substantiate evidence for design, because it is we humans who asked this question in the first place, and therefore humans should look at its own design, and why not examine the highest level of design known. In the scientific sense, ID must take the strongest arguments possible for the design inference. If there is a designer then we know that he couldn't have created the universe and left out us insignificant humans. Thats probably why ID also examines cosmological design. ID most definitely looks at modularity in a system that includes specified complexity, irreducible complexity, redundancy etc...so ID will look at the most detailed levels of that which not only express a form of design, which are actually efficient systems that perform functions of a designed system (ie: information processing through a logical and physical based infrastructure). A tree is more of a physical infrastructure, biological complexity incorporates both the logical and physical, representative of a modular system that subdivides into more modules that each perform certain functions, many of our best-known designs includes this.

"If is looks designed, there must be a designer....but what if is doesn't look designed? Doesn't exclude a designer! And unfortunately we set up a situation that allows atheists to assert a position that isnt' necessarily true."

Here you state that an atheist can make many assertions based on if something doesn't look designed, but you forgot to include that atheists will make assertions nevertheless, if something LOOKS or DOESN'T LOOK designed. One has to wonder, an atheist is left to make infinite assertions for as long as they keep telling themselves that "it only appears to be designed".
ID can use Dr. Dembski's formula for calculating CSI or showing a system is irreducibly complex, but I have to admit that the mathematical calculations for probabilities, the amount of CSI in a system, whether its irreducibly complex or not will NEVER stack up against "it only appears to be designed". Like I have stated before, its simply complete and utter denial in one package.

One thing I should add, when ID determines if something is designed or not based on those parameters, it must first reach a certain threshold before it would indicate design, and in a low-level system there is not enough variables to determine that threshold as a cause of "intelligent design".

[godslanguage]

"He could have used Elmer's glue for that matter"

LOL!

[godslanguage]

Those who say that ID does not correctly represent the God of the Bible. How?

The question is therefore, how can we correctly represent God in the scientific field, when the scientific field seems to be in complete denial of God in the scientific sense, and because of that the scientific-sense has overruled the biblical sense. The authority that has over-ruled this scientific-to-biblical sense is none other then our Darwinian friends, the ones that want to declare God as a symptom or a side-effect of a psychotic episode. along with scripture and for that matter all of history at least up the point of Jesus's arrival.

[Jad]

For example a painting implies a painter, a watch implies a watchmaker etc. The problem is that this argument was debunked well over 100 years ago by John Stuart Mill...

"Watches imply watchmakers only because we know by previous experience that watches are things made by watchmakers. In like manner one would not know that dung was something left by an animal unless he had previously observed animals deposit dung." - John Stuart Mill (1806—1873)

Now unless I have missed something why are we all still trying to flog this dead horse?

First off... We can theorize all we want on how God designed things. To be honest with you I really don't know how God created things.. But what we need to understand (if we are using the Bible as our guide) is that the Bible CLEARLY states that God DID create everything that we see Genesis 1. To say that he didn't have a hand in it, which Darwinian evolution clearly states, is a total contradiction of scripture and faith... For me, as long as God gets the credit, I could really care less how he did it. He could have used Elmer's glue for that matter. So.. if someone says that science doesn't support the God of the Bible, then basically God did NOT have a hand in the creation of it. It's that simple...

I'm glad that you admit upfront that you do not really know how God created things. I think that is a great place to start and I feel the exact same way. While I fully understand that the Bible states God did create I don't think we should automatically assume God created everything only under the idea of what we humans might consider design. The Bible also claims that God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts and His ways are higher than our ways which I think truly plays a part here.

ID is still in it's infant stage and is not ready for prime time, therefore for someone to automatically claim that is false is way ahead of the game.. ID basically states that a designer created it all. That is pretty much it. It does not necessarily imply a deity as some claim... It is completely neutral, leaving the individual their right to choose who that designer may be whether it be a deity such as Allah, Brahman or Yahweh. It could even be used for the ET advocates who claim that aliens designed our world.. For me, I think that an individual can decide who that designer is.. And if it is Allah or Brahman, the three stooges, or Buck Rogers, then fine... so be it. Unfortunately, we are a secular society and we can't appease everyone.

The problem with this train of thought is that you invoke something outside of science. You can then fill in the blank with whatever you want as you suggested which is all hypothetical with no logic and reason and has nothing do with science. This is where the atheist or agnostic raises his voice and screams religion and rightly so.

And let me make another point here.. Those who say that ID does not correctly represent the God of the Bible. How? Again what is the correct way to represent how God created our world as we know it today? And how does ID negate the God of the Bible? The Jews used many different names for God and one of them was "Elohim" or creator. How do we know how God is going to judge all of this? Is he going to pat those on the back who got the pronunciation of his name right? I don't think so.. In fact Jesus makes that claim that those who once used his name would be false teachers. More on that here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... heard.html

It is because of the John Stuart Mill rebuttal to the watchmaker argument for a designer that I cannot help but see a lot of what is going in the ID movement as null and void. I've never come across a good argument to refute that response. I don't think ID negates the God of the Bible as such, I just think it limits God's method of creation. I can just imagine sitting by a campfire in the new heaven or the new earth, with Jesus, and asking Him "so how'd ya do it?" I think the response will be a lot different to what we know now.

I think the correct way to represent how God created our world as we know it today would be by admitting we don't really know. We can come up with some wonderful hypothesis' based on logic and reason but using the watchmaker argument or any variant of it simply isn't valid. In fact I don't think it should be used at all. It may seem logical at first but there is no reasoning to back the logic up. I'm only focusing on the watchmaker argument for a designer in my discussions here btw and nothing else. Fine Tuning and Irreducible Complexity I have not studied enough to critique. There maybe something we can use there to help share our great creating God, I don't know. It's just we hear so much supposed support for the ID movement using the watchmaker argument that I can't help but think if I were an atheist I wouldn't give it a 2nd look either. I think it is because of this way of arguing for ID is still not taught in our science labs.

I'm Christian too.. And I don't think that Biblical creationism should be taught in our public school systems. Why? Because America is a secular society and we can't appease everyone or all taxpayers. Of course I would like to have Biblical creationism taught in school, but let's face it, to be fair we really can't.

I think Biblical creationism can be taught in our public school systems, just not in the science lab. Evolutionism (macro-evolution) should also be left out of the science lab as well though. I don't have a problem with variation or mutation of species (micro-evolution) over long periods of time being taught in the science lab but I think that micro-evolution over short periods of time should be studied in the science lab along with it. I think that can be done without tagging it as religious.


-

[animal]

The problem with this train of thought is that you invoke something outside of science. You can then fill in the blank with whatever you want as you suggested which is all hypothetical with no logic and reason and has nothing do with science. This is where the atheist or agnostic raises his voice and screams religion and rightly so.

Well said.

[Byblos]

I think Biblical creationism can be taught in our public school systems, just not in the science lab. Evolutionism (macro-evolution) should also be left out of the science lab as well though. I don't have a problem with variation or mutation of species (micro-evolution) over long periods of time being taught in the science lab but I think that micro-evolution over short periods of time should be studied in the science lab along with it. I think that can be done without tagging it as religious.

Well said.

[godslanguage]

I think Biblical creationism can be taught in our public school systems, just not in the science lab. Evolutionism (macro-evolution) should also be left out of the science lab as well though. I don't have a problem with variation or mutation of species (micro-evolution) over long periods of time being taught in the science lab but I think that micro-evolution over short periods of time should be studied in the science lab along with it. I think that can be done without tagging it as religious.

Thats one solution to the problem in this whole debate. Believe it or not, this would solve a tremendous amount of anxiety in the evolution vs. creationism and ID debate in America. The fact however is that THIS WON'T HAPPEN. Creationism is a threat to Darwinian evolution (note the term: Darwinian), and you know who the authorities are in the public sector?...
---> Darwinian evolutionists <---.

It will never happen!!! So its a nice suggestion, but the horse that you believe we keep beating on, is more alive then ever thanks to an upgrade in advanced microscopic technology. That horse in the 1800's had definitely no ID'ea.

Just as GMAN has said, ID is only in its infancy, and thank God that its not being taught in the public schools along with the Neo-Darwinists. The Neo-Darwinists will have nowhere else to hide but the public schools

[godslanguage]

The problem with this train of thought is that you invoke something outside of science. You can then fill in the blank with whatever you want as you suggested which is all hypothetical with no logic and reason and has nothing do with science. This is where the atheist or agnostic raises his voice and screams religion and rightly so.

Well said.

I knew animal would definitely satisfy himself with this statement.

However. we all know what the answer to that "fill in the blank" question, and it has everything to do with science, it is completely reasonable and there is tons of logic to back-it up.

[Jad]

I think Biblical creationism can be taught in our public school systems, just not in the science lab. Evolutionism (macro-evolution) should also be left out of the science lab as well though. I don't have a problem with variation or mutation of species (micro-evolution) over long periods of time being taught in the science lab but I think that micro-evolution over short periods of time should be studied in the science lab along with it. I think that can be done without tagging it as religious.

Thats one solution to the problem in this whole debate. Believe it or not, this would solve a tremendous amount of anxiety in the evolution vs. creationism and ID debate in America. The fact however is that THIS WON'T HAPPEN. Creationism is a threat to Darwinian evolution (note the term: Darwinian), and you know who the authorities are in the public sector?...
---> Darwinian evolutionists <---.

It will never happen!!! So its a nice suggestion, but the horse that you believe we keep beating on, is more alive then ever thanks to an upgrade in advanced microscopic technology. That horse in the 1800's had definitely no ID'ea.

Just as GMAN has said, ID is only in its infancy, and thank God that its not being taught in the public schools along with the Neo-Darwinists. The Neo-Darwinists will have nowhere else to hide but the public schools

It will never happen? Do you not believe in miracles godslanguage?

I'm very open to being completely wrong regarding my dead horse so please do share why you think this horse is still alive and well. Because I really would like to believe it again myself. It's just the argument against it convinces me otherwise atm and I'm not sure of the way around it. Any other tools the ID'ers use which you think are sound would be great too.

The problem with this train of thought is that you invoke something outside of science. You can then fill in the blank with whatever you want as you suggested which is all hypothetical with no logic and reason and has nothing do with science. This is where the atheist or agnostic raises his voice and screams religion and rightly so.

Well said.

I knew animal would definitely satisfy himself with this statement.

However. we all know what the answer to that "fill in the blank" question, and it has everything to do with science, it is completely reasonable and there is tons of logic to back-it up.

I would have to agree with godslanguage regarding the existence of God. If the ID'ers are correct and yes design does imply a designer then it would open the door to many things outside of science like Buck Rogers as mentioned and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What I meant was many things outside of science other than the uncaused cause (God) which can be shown in some of the better variations of the cosmological argument. I think just as Luther wanted the Bible open to be read by anyone, knowing full well it would invoke many different interpretations, ID as an option would still be a good thing. Or when God created free will knowing full well we could choose to do the wrong thing, it was still very good.


-

[godslanguage]

Jad, all I can say is that the implied designer by ID cannot be an Alien being, nor the flying spagehetti monster etc... An alien would have to be designed as well, a flying spaghetti monster would require a reason why spaghetti would be flying around, none of these agents make any sense whatsoever. The only agent that does make sense in ID, is a all-power agent that is the cause of everything. We can picture all kinds of designers in our head, if someone has not the idea of what the bible implies about God, and they believe the flying spaghetti monster created everything, then God is the flying spaghetti monster.

I know there are plenty of imaginable characters to picture here, the tooth fairy and what else, but Gman has said before, I have said it before and many have said it before, there are only two scenarios:

Either its designed by a almighty powerful God - one that created the order and disorder, one that created all what we see, and what we don't see
Else
Its not designed by anything, no designer exists - Darwinian processes are enough to explain all of life without divine intervention, without a purpose and without a cause

Believe me when I say that designer that ID does not want anything and yet has everything to do with IS God.