Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

[godslanguage]

Jad, ID is already in. If you mean "in" by being taught in public schools, that doesn't need to happen.

[godslanguage]

I don't think we should limit God to ID theory and ID alone though

Ofcourse not,
Jad, if you believe this then I cannot tell you how wrong you are about ID. I cannot go any further in arguing with you here, since your "premise" about ID is inaccurate. I alone do not speak for the ID community, and perhaps wikipedia is not the recommended source for information on it, you should visit primary ID sources and ask the same questions you have asked me. They will tell you the same thing, and either that you must at some point acknowledge the fact that ID really does stay within the boundaries of science, even though there maybe religious implications.

[godslanguage]

A recent Blog entry here: http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/0 ... than-that/

By John A. Davison:

The Fudamentalists have in no sense subverted real science. That is a lot of nonsense, Incidentally neither have the Darwinians. Real science continues in the laboratories of the world totally independent of these two armed camps, neither one of which has a leg to stand on. What these laboratories continue to reveal is a scenario in which chance could never have played a role in the origin or origins of life or its subsequent evolution, an evolution which canniot be denied by any rational observer

Both ontogeny and phylogeny have proceeded on the basis of initially stored information which was systematically released and expressed over the millions of years that we know evolution took place. None of those events were gradual, all were instantaneous, irreversible and part of an overall Plan (like Robert Broom I capitalize it which has now been realized. Natural selection, the sine qua non of the Darwinian fairy tale, always has had the same role which was and is still to stabilize each step in the evolutionary sequence. Creative evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past just as Julian Huxley, Robert Broom and Pierre Grasse all claimed. The Darwinians led currently by P.Z. Myers, Richard Dawkins and Wesley Elsberry have cynically and deliberately pretended that they have never had any serious critics.

The only role for the environment in all of evolution was to provide the stage for the next evolutionary event, first the sea, then fresh water, then land and finally the air. This sequence was all established long before it ever took place. Evolution, like ontogeny was entirely emergent, determined at the outset and now, as nearly as can be ascertained, finished. Both the fossil record and the experimental laboratory plead for this interpretation of the great mystery our origins. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Darwinian model ever had anything to do with any of it. Darwinism is an illusion, a delusion, and nothing but the necessary construct of a congenital mentality which is unable to hear what Einstein called “the music of the spheres.” Neither the Fundamentalists nor the atheist Darwinians have contributed a scintilla to our understanding of the two greatest mysteries in all of biology, ontogeny and phylogeny.

“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis

My own contribution, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” rests firmly on a synthesis of the contributions of some of the greatest biologists of the past who continue to be ignored by the still dominant Darwinian chance-happy, mutation inebriated establishment, an establishment now thankfully finally sounding its long overdue death rattle.

[Jad]

I don't think we should limit God to ID theory and ID alone though

Ofcourse not,
Jad, if you believe this then I cannot tell you how wrong you are about ID. I cannot go any further in arguing with you here, since your "premise" about ID is inaccurate. I alone do not speak for the ID community, and perhaps wikipedia is not the recommended source for information on it, you should visit primary ID sources and ask the same questions you have asked me. They will tell you the same thing, and either that you must at some point acknowledge the fact that ID really does stay within the boundaries of science, even though there maybe religious implications.

I think we've got our wires crossed a bit. Perhaps it is my fault for not explaining myself properly. For that I am sorry. My main issue is with the word 'Design'. I think it is entirely subjective and the design arguments being used I think are faulty. 'Intelligence' on the other I do not have issue with. An Intelligent Cause or an Intelligent Agent rolls off my tongue a little easier if you understand my issue here.
I think if we use 'Design' and the analogies for a Designer, like the watchmaker argument, then I cannot see it progress into the the science world based on these analogies alone.

So I think we are both on the same track here; but perhaps it is just me that cannot see the usefulness in the word 'Design'. Intelligence however I can understand. Below is a great piece I snatched from one of the books I am reading atm. It doesn't use the word Design but only refers to intelligence.

"During the last thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends on a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the big bang itself. Scientists once believed that whatever the initial conditions of the universe, eventually intelligent life might evolve. But we now know that our existence is balanced on a knife's edge. It seems vastly more probable that a life-prohibiting universe rather than a life-permitting universe such as ours should exist. The existence of intelligent life depends on a conspiracy of initial conditions that must be fine-tuned to a degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball. British physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least. He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10,100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the big bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010(123). There are around fifty such quantities and constants present in the big bang that must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. And it's not just each quantity that must be finely tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely tuned. Therefore, improbability is added to improbability to improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers"

Geisler, N. L., & Hoffman, P. K. (2001). Why I am a Christian : Leading thinkers explain why they believe (68). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

I hope this all makes sense now godslanguage. I am sorry if I have offended; it was never my intention. I'm just after answers that is all. I will take your good advice and ask the same questions at some other primary ID sources elsewhere. If you can recommend any I would be very grateful.


-

[godslanguage]

No problem Jad, if you have offended anyone, it is not me by a long shot.

[Jad]

Hey godslanguage I've just started reading John A. Davison's Evolutionary Manifesto and it's awesome. I can't put it down! I'm not even a quarter of the way through and already I am loving it. If you can get him on this board that would be fantastic.

Everyone else if you've not had a look at the link above please do so, you will not be disappointed.

Thanks again godslanguage. Most appreciated.

[KrisW]

My friend animal believes that ID is creationism because creationism is "religious in origins" and therefore ID has relgious implications and is therefore non-scientific, animal claims that ID "IS" creationism in disguise. Animal believes I have evaded his concerns of ID being in fact religious and I have failed to present a logical argument for him that says otherwise.

Ask your friend why it is that while nearly all scientists agree the Big Bang was caused by an "external causal agent", almost none of them acknowledge just the possibility that "external causal agent" is God.

Then ask him if he knows what the Socratic method is......

[David Blacklock]

>>why it is that while nearly all scientists agree the Big Bang was caused by an "external causal agent", almost none of them acknowledge just the possibility that "external causal agent" is God<<

I think, if questioned about this, "most scientists" would acknowledge that science has no idea what caused the Big Bang, and a number of them indeed WOULD suggest that the external causal agent was God.

DB

[Himantolophus]

Hey godslanguage I've just started reading John A. Davison's Evolutionary Manifesto and it's awesome. I can't put it down! I'm not even a quarter of the way through and already I am loving it. If you can get him on this board that would be fantastic.

That was an interesting read and I am open to new explanations for macroevolution, especially ones that can be tested. He presented his argument well and he didn't seem to have any religious overtones (although he mentioned God as maybe acting in the process). I think his approach is fully scientific and I'm curious to see how it is accepted or reacted to by other scientists.

I wouldn't really consider this "ID" since evolution is still the mechanism behind speciation. This idea mostly replaces the Darwinian theory of evolution witha new theory of evolution. Whether it came about by chance or was guided, it's still evolution to me.

[godslanguage]

Well yes and no, John A. Davisons Manifesto is not about finding evidence for intelligent design but simply that a designer must have existed and acted on at least once, because there was a need for such. While John A. Davison hypothesis is definitely pro-evolution it is however anti-Darwinian in every single aspect. He views natural selection as nothing more then to prevent changes from happening (which is opposite to what Darwinists believe), he believes all evidence points to an evolution at a dead hault for quite a while and that everything was pre-determined from the beginning. He currently resides on ISCID forum, expelled blog site and recently had his own blog set up. I am not aware of any Darwinist who has yet refuted any scientific merits in his manifesto as I have kept track of this for a while now. His views will undoubtedly be ignored since hes not a Darwinist and we all know what happens to non-chance/luck happy candidates u get the boot...

[godslanguage]

I wouldn't really consider this "ID" since evolution is still the mechanism behind speciation. This idea mostly replaces the Darwinian theory of evolution witha new theory of evolution. Whether it came about by chance or was guided, it's still evolution to me.

I agree, except that many ID supporters believe in evolution, one form of it or another. The catch here is that there is an intelligent source behind it rather then simply a unguided search process to create and modify living systems through random variation and natural selection. The idea with DE is a constant search to find a solution to a problem given enough time, without any guidance. Of course, the idea that there is a "problem" to begin with is somewhat of a problem itself. I don't see why nature in and of itself couldn't do fine without living systems.

Indeed its still evolution, if people want to call it evolution so be it, I prefer creative process/event as an alternative - yet fundamentally we can also call that evolution. This term evolution bothered me ever since I heard it. Nowadays, we describe everything as being "evolved" and give everything the black box appeal as though we can create a simplification or abstraction of the real inner-workings ( inputs and outputs ) behind every obstacle or phenomena and the layers below it. The term itself "evolution" has always been a term that told me nothing, Darwinian evolution has always been a topic that proclaimed the all knowing, yet it is far below standards that to me have even minimal logical consistency.

[tommyboy605182]

i didn't read this entire thread, so ill just respond to the initial question. i don't think ID has religious implications if it is taught right; i don't think schools should teach ID in the strict creationism sense. the word "creationism" brings up too many images and implications of a 6000 year old earth, global flood, etc... things that we can't teach in science class if we are to expect children to trust the discoveries of science. rather, we should make children aware of the questions that *cannot* be answered by science, even though we turn to science for their answers.

i think it is extremely arrogant of naturalists to suggest that we only teach the questions to which we have answers to. kids aren't stupid... if they have any interest at all in the subject matter, they will eventually ask the questions... how did everything begin? what about the fine-tuning? these are obvious questions that stem off of discussions regarding evolution and the big bang. we should be making children aware of these questions, and then explaining the possible answers. even though science doesn't have the answers, there are other fields which have potential... cue philosophy, theism, etc.

i took an astronomy class at my local community college a couple semesters ago, and i really liked the way my instructor handled the issue. he taught the entire course from a purely naturalist perspective, and then on the final day in class he brought up the unanswered questions. he made us aware that many respectable scientists believe that there may be an all-powerful Deity behind it all, and gave us material reinforcing that claim. we were left to reflect on everything we had learn in class and ponder the unanswered questions on our own.

[Himantolophus]

Hey godslanguage I've just started reading John A. Davison's Evolutionary Manifesto and it's awesome. I can't put it down! I'm not even a quarter of the way through and already I am loving it. If you can get him on this board that would be fantastic.

I was curious what this does for the YEC's that believe natural selection and mutation caused the rapid speciation of "kinds" following the flood. If natural selection can be proven to be a stabilizing force and not a divergent force then their whole post-Noah speciation event has no driving force. Seems like the YEC's are under attack by both sides now!

Going back to Davidson being "ostracized", I don't like how someone with an interesting hypothesis can just be ignored. I know you might read that and say I'm a hypocrit and say "but you agree with creationists being ostracized?". Not the same situation in my opinion. This man has a hypothesis in which macroevolution may be explained and he doesn't once use the word "God" in his essay. If anything, he should be able to pursue his idea with experimentation. Who's to say that the mechanism he explains could not be natural? I know there are alot of Darwinian evolutionists out there that may be against this, but I as a theistic evolutionist would not be. Everything evolves, science should be able to too.

[ARWallace]

Well, I realize this response comes well after the original question was posed, but I thought I'd jump in. My apologies for repeating anything that was already posted - I made it through about the fourth page of replies - some relevant to the original question, some not.

There are a couple of reasons that ID is not a scientific explanation. The primary reason is does not qualify as science is because it violates a central assumption in the philosophy and practice of science - that of methodological naturalism. Simply put, science always assume natural explanation exist for natural phenomena. ID advocates supernatural intervention - that some deity acted at various times during organic evolution to pop various structures or biochemical pathways into existence without any precursors. Not only would such an act render the study of such structures pointless (i.e. there would be no way to understand how or why they came into existence) but science would have to assume that such events did not took place as there is no scientific study that could investigate the motives of the designer much less their very existence. Supernatural entities are by their very nature outside the realm of scientific inquiry. So a central portion of this model's explanatory system is inconveniently shielded from scientific investigation.

Second, ID fails to make any scientific predictions - a hallmark of any good scientific theory. Dembski admits as much: ""Intelligent design offers a radically different problematic for science than a mechanistic science wedded solely to undirected natural causes. Yes, intelligent design concedes predictability." and "Innovation, the emergence to true novelty, eschews predictability." (citation). And in No Free Lunch he points out that design may not even leave detectable traces. "Please note that I am not offering a theory about the frequency or intermittency with which an unembodied designer imparts information into the world. I would not be surprised if most of the information imparted by such a designer will elude us, not conforming to any patterns that might enable us to detect this designer... [pp. 346-347]". Minimally, ID doesn't make any predictions that are both good, and not made by other theories.

Finally, as someone pointed out earlier, ID fails because it is contradicted by scientific evidence. For example, naturalistic explanations for allegedly IC structures such as the bacterial flagellum and vertebrate blood clotting exist.

[Kurieuo]

Well, I realize this response comes well after the original question was posed, but I thought I'd jump in. My apologies for repeating anything that was already posted - I made it through about the fourth page of replies - some relevant to the original question, some not.

There are a couple of reasons that ID is not a scientific explanation. The primary reason is does not qualify as science is because it violates a central assumption in the philosophy and practice of science - that of methodological naturalism.

Don't you mean metaphysical naturalism? Methodological naturalism does not assume God or a creator do not exist so the Creationist variety of ID does not violate it. On the other hand, metaphysical naturalism rules out such from the get go and so would thus be incompatible.

Simply put, science always assume natural explanation exist for natural phenomena.

Science does not assume anything. Man does.

ID advocates supernatural intervention - that some deity acted at various times during organic evolution to pop various structures or biochemical pathways into existence without any precursors.

Yes, Creationist ID proponents do advocate this and would love to bring God into the science classroom again. The core ID proponents (those central to the movement) however do not take this leap to suggest who the designer is with their science. Their science is only targeted at examining "designed" elements which is useful to us for improving the way we ourselves do things.