Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Science/Math/Logic all require any corollary of a theorem to be true, so let's keep to the original theme of this thread ...
Assume ID is correct, so it can be scientifically proven that:
- intelligent design is inherent within the whole universe (as opposed to a closed system)
- there is an intelligent designer (ID proponents are very clear that the theory does not specify the identity of the designer in any way, but all appear to believe it to be God).
A corollary of the theory however is that, if the Intelligent Designer exists, it presumably must exist either in the natural world or transcend the natural world (be supernatural).
If it transcends the natural world then it cannot be defined, predicted, measured and tested within the natural world. If any of those things were true then it could no longer be said to transcend the natural world - obviously. Therefore the Intelligent Designer could not be supernatural. It could not be God for example.
For myself, I do believe in God, but as you can see I reject ID.
What does this mean for the theory of Intelligent Design?
Let us ignore the Darwin-centric arguments for a second, and judge this theory entirely on its own merits, using our system of universal truths.
Let us assume the theory is correct, and that there is/are intelligent designers that can be detected by scientific experiment. It then follows that an intelligent designer(s) either resides in the natural world, or else is a supernatural entity.
If an intelligent designer is supernatural then by definition it cannot be detected through scientific experiment. Put another way, if an entity is predictable, measurable and testable, expressable in terms of mathematical equations, then it is clearly a resident of the natural world.
It must therefore follow that an intelligent designer is a naturally occurring entity. But that tells us that anything designed by an intelligent designer is ultimately also naturally occurring, as it originally can be seen to have got started with the natural occurence of the intelligent designer.
Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, there is no intelligent designer.
How did you make that big jump?
Last edited by Cobra on Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If it transcends the natural world then it cannot be defined, predicted, measured and tested within the natural world. If any of those things were true then it could no longer be said to transcend the natural world - obviously. Therefore the Intelligent Designer could not be supernatural. It could not be God for example.
For myself, I do believe in God, but as you can see I reject ID.
Now let's stop right there.
Now you are thinking in a circle. Just because God can't be measured doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. Nor should He be measured. What type of God would He be if you could put Him in your test tube? Not a good one.
Even atheists admit that it took the minimum of one miracle to get life started: either the universe happened uncaused or God happened uncaused and caused the universe. Either way, the existance of one miracle compromises the consistancy of all of the laws of science.
In short, life and existance were either formed on accident or on purpose. Do you believe also that if you drop paint on the floor you will get the Mona Lisa?
I think in the long run we're making a mistake by attempting to reintroduce religious thought in the realm of science rather than allowing it to be what it is.
Let me play devil's advocate for a minute and follow this line of thought.
What if science shows that there must be a god-like entity? Should we then as a society say, "Well, we know this to be a truth, but we can't teach it to our children because the Supreme Court has ruled that the freedom of religion prevents us from talking about such things in public schools."
Should we really use the Constitution as an excuse to ignore fundemental truths? Should we really teach evolution as fact in spite of the huge hurdles in front of it just because any other view calls for the need of intelligence?
I'm all for the seperation of church and state in things that are purely a matter of religion but to use it as a banner against legitimate theories and to use it to forward things we know to be untrue - well, that's just silly. And yet as a society we do that anyway...
[quote="CobraJust because God can't be measured doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. Nor should He be measured. What type of God would He be if you could put Him in your test tube? Not a good one.[/quote]
That's exactly my point Cobra!!
I do believe in God. I reject ID (which is proposed as a scientific theory).
Cobra wrote:Just because God can't be measured doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. Nor should He be measured. What type of God would He be if you could put Him in your test tube? Not a good one.
That's exactly my point Cobra!!
I believe in God. I reject ID (which is proposed as a scientific theory)
I don't think your reasoning leads you where you want to be led.
Perhaps the analogy is poor, but lets look at the Model A Ford.
Its designer has died, so presumably he now transcends the natural world, yet we can still detect design in the Model A without the need to see the designer.
IF we can detect design we can presume a designer even if they are no longer present in a measurable testable way.
Do you reject that the Model A is designed?
What are the properties of something designed? If something has the properties can we logically and reasonably reject it as designed simply because we can not measure or test the designer?
This gets much closer to the heart of the matter, and perhaps is akin to how Dembski puts it:
the immediate intelligence responsible for these patterns in nature could be some derived or surrogate intelligence that is not identical with God
The way you put it seems to infer that God might have transformed himself into a physical being (made the universe) and then slipped back into transcendency.
Jbuza wrote:If something is designed it is designed.
Yes, if you want to call it that. But something "designed" by a transcendent being does not necessarily look "designed" to a non-transcendent one. And vice versa.
It would be more productive to refine the (flawed) philosophy behind evolution, rather than try to challenge it scientifically
mathmystic wrote:The way you put it seems to infer that God might have transformed himself into a physical being (made the universe) and then slipped back into transcendency.
I just reject that notion.
jbuza wrote:Yeah me too
Well not too sure now. God clearly demonstrated that he could do that with Jesus. The Bible says that some have entertained angels unaware. So perhaps it is indeed possible for God to take a physical form and then slip back into transcendency.
What is the Angel of the LORD?
Oh Ahem. To get back on topic. Perhaps a higher beings design would be beyond anything we could ourselves design, say life.
