Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

[zoegirl]

wow! a lot of responses!

I agree with what you say, Gman, I simply would like us to be careful of what we say. I think you represent things accurately and well. *Sometimes* in dialogues with ID and DE, it can come across that way, the false dichotomy, I mean. And I just wanted things to be clarified, which you aptly did. Because many will bring up examples like the snowflake and rock formations and use these as examples against ID.

[zoegirl]

Oh, yeah

Just for my two cents worth.

Plants and trees, IMHO, quite adequately show design. MUCH, much different than rocks

Had an awesome plant physiology professor in undergrad that was very good at making plant physiology interesting. She could bring up all of the structural details of the trees that any engineer would appreciate.

[Jad]

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

I'm way past my bedtime so could you please reword that last sentence for me? I can't for the life of me work out what you're trying to say here lol.

[Gman]

The problem with this train of thought is that you invoke something outside of science.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Which science are you referring to?

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.

Jad... To be honest.. Do you really believe that we will ever truly understand the science that went behind our origins? In order to solidify any of this, it would have to prove itself from scratch probably in a test tube.. To this day neither ID nor DE have the "complete" facts behind origins. One demands the presence or the creator, the other requires a lot of time with some chance mixed into it. Frankly to be honest with you, my belief is that neither camps will ever solve the mystery of life using whatever scientific approach it needs.. It will be forever a mystery, unless of course we get or capture some divine intervention sometime in the future.

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.

Ah.. I don't understand. If you ask Jesus how he did it, then you are assuming that he DID do it (create it) which is the point that we are trying to make.

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.

Sorry.. I would disagree with this approach. When it comes to origins I say we let all the hypothesis or theories breath together.. It's how we learn. Life is a mystery.. Frankly I would be happy to leave it this way... Who wants to stifle education?

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.

I would side with godslanguage on this one.. It maybe nice, but it is not realistic approach. And besides, I wouldn't condone the teaching of either micro or macro evolution for that matter. I'm not threatened by them... I say we let them stay in our educational systems. Let's just be accurate about it.. That's all.. It's how we will learn...

[godslanguage]

Oh, yeah

Just for my two cents worth.

Plants and trees, IMHO, quite adequately show design. MUCH, much different than rocks

Had an awesome plant physiology professor in undergrad that was very good at making plant physiology interesting. She could bring up all of the structural details of the trees that any engineer would appreciate.

I have to admit I don't know too much about trees

[Jad]

The problem with this train of thought is that you invoke something outside of science.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Which science are you referring to?

I was referring to your claim that ID basically states that a designer created it all and that in doing so opens the door to not only Yahweh but Allah, Brahman, ET, The Three Stooges, Buck Rogers etc. I didn't word it correctly sorry. Although I referred to it as a problem I still think it's a good thing, better than closing the door to no God at all.

Jad... To be honest.. Do you really believe that we will ever truly understand the science that went behind our origins? In order to solidify any of this, it would have to prove itself from scratch probably in a test tube.. To this day neither ID nor DE have the "complete" facts behind origins. One demands the presence or the creator, the other requires a lot of time with some chance mixed into it. Frankly to be honest with you, my belief is that neither camps will ever solve the mystery of life using whatever scientific approach it needs.. It will be forever a mystery, unless of course we get or capture some divine intervention sometime in the future.

I totally agree with you Gman. While on this earth we will never fully understand how God did it.

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.

Ah.. I don't understand. If you ask Jesus how he did it, then you are assuming that he DID do it (create it) which is the point that we are trying to make.

No the point we are trying to make is HOW God did it, not IF He did it. I firmly believe the God of the Bible created all space and time. The process in which he used to create however, be it micro-evolution of long periods of time, short periods of time, design only under the human experience level, is the question I am asking and the point I am trying to make; of which I think you I and agree we do not know. My asking Jesus how he did it was for when we are in the new heaven or the new earth, of which I hope and pray He will fill me in on all the details.

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.

Sorry.. I would disagree with this approach. When it comes to origins I say we let all the hypothesis or theories breath together.. It's how we learn. Life is a mystery.. Frankly I would be happy to leave it this way... Who wants to stifle education?

Again I think you've misread me here. I agree we should let all the hypothesis or theories breath together, I was specifically talking about the use of the watchmaker argument or any variant of it. I believe it is a faulty hypothesis. Like any good hypothesis in these areas if it cannot be backed up by reason (actual reality) there is no point in using it as a winning argument. If you don't believe it is faulty then please share why with all of us. I would like to be able to use this argument again but I cannot in my right mind do so considering John Mill's very plausible and reasonable argument against it.

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.

I would side with godslanguage on this one.. It maybe nice, but it is not realistic approach. And besides, I wouldn't condone the teaching of either micro or macro evolution for that matter. I'm not threatened by them... I say we let them stay in our educational systems. Let's just be accurate about it.. That's all.. It's how we will learn...

I actually belief the study of micro-evolution and a young earth is much more likely to enter the science lab than ID is at this present stage. I think it can be studied without invoking creationism or religion whereas ID is still based on religion rather than science as the Denver courts have already proven beyond reasonable doubt. I followed this court case by listening in on the Science Friday podcast news updates and arguments like the watchmaker analogy for a designer was one of the main reasons ID lost the case. Science Friday, the overtly atheistic and evolutionist online radio show had no problem sharing this information to the world.

If micro-evolution over short periods of time (less than 10,000 years) is a scientifically sound argument without invoking at creator or designer, and using the same evidence the old earth micro-evolutionists use, then it should have no problem entering the science lab in our schools and universities. If you have to include the supernatural to prove it then keep it out of the science lab and put it in a different classroom. Science is the study of the natural causes not the supernatural. If the supernatural (God) can be seen IN the natural sciences and not brought from outside the natural sciences and into the science lab then so be it. As the Bible says in Psalm 19 "The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork." Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."

For me the watchmaker argument and the varieties of it don't quite do it. But again if you have a good rebuttal to the John Stuart Mill argument then please share it with me, or any other argument the ID'ers use that supports the scriptures I mentioned.


-


-

[godslanguage]

This is a good link for some short answers to questions about intelligent design:

http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm

[Jad]

This is a good link for some short answers to questions about intelligent design:

http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm

I had a look at the link you gave and decided first to enter the page titled How Can You Tell if Something is Designed? Isn't that Pretty Subjective? I thought yes this is exactly what I am searching answers for. Unfortunately it's still arriving at conclusions based on the watchmaker analogy. It recognizes the Gettysburg address written by the scrabble pieces as they are randomly being pulled out of the bag one at a time only because the person viewing it already has experience in written English and the Gettysburg address. If he didn't have these previous experiences he wouldn't recognize any kind of order or design.
The 2nd set of letters being pulled that look like random letters to you and I are more probable an outcome when pulling Scrabble pieces out of a bag at random. So from what I can tell they are using the watchmaker analogy for the scrabble pieces reading the Gettysburg address and then they imply that it was too highly improbable to have happened by chance, rejecting the idea that God can create something that looks like chance to us but is in fact quite orderly to Him.

The other example on the same page with the football stadium is trying to imply something even more random as if the higher the randomness becomes to you and I as finite beings, the less reason to believe chance can do something and design must therefore be the answer. Again why can't God create something that looks like chance to us finite human beings? Trying to make something more and more complex is only more and more complex to you and I as humans but not God.

Again if you think I've missed something please let me know. In the meantime I'll keep reading the other pages in that link you gave godslanguage, if you think it's worth a look.


-

[Gman]

I was referring to your claim that ID basically states that a designer created it all and that in doing so opens the door to not only Yahweh but Allah, Brahman, ET, The Three Stooges, Buck Rogers etc. I didn't word it correctly sorry. Although I referred to it as a problem I still think it's a good thing, better than closing the door to no God at all.

I had to inject Allah, Brahman, ET, the Three Stooges and Buck Rogers for shock value. Sorry.. Yes they stink as an alternative to God, but then again we really have no control on what designer a person wants to choose for their catalyst for creation in a public setting.

No the point we are trying to make is HOW God did it, not IF He did it.

Ok.. My rebuttal was more against your statement "I cannot help but see a lot of what is going in the ID movement as null and void" which basically makes ID look silly. Again my response would be is that the case for ID is way too young to make any real stance for now. On the other hand, I don't think the DE has the right answer either... Both still need some research.

I was specifically talking about the use of the watchmaker argument or any variant of it. I believe it is a faulty hypothesis. Like any good hypothesis in these areas if it cannot be backed up by reason (actual reality) there is no point in using it as a winning argument. If you don't believe it is faulty then please share why with all of us. I would like to be able to use this argument again but I cannot in my right mind do so considering John Mill's very plausible and reasonable argument against it.

To be honest with you I really haven't studied it too much. I believe it's basic premise is that structure came by three possible explanations that being chance, natural causes, or ID. If chance or natural chances could be nullified by observational science, then ID would be the logical choice. I would side with Rich Deem on this in the belief that the design of biological organisms is still in it's infancy, since many of the genetic tests of DE can not be completed due to incomplete databases of genetics. It's just too early to tell.. I don't believe it has WON anything...

More on that here: http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/sld019.html

And here: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... maker.html

I actually belief the study of micro-evolution and a young earth is much more likely to enter the science lab than ID is at this present stage.

Oh.. I think young earth science is an embarrassment to science. It has pretty much been repudiated in all scientific realms. The really sad thing about it is that I use to believe in it..

I think it can be studied without invoking creationism or religion whereas ID is still based on religion rather than science as the Denver courts have already proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm sorry to disagree with you again Jad. The only people that believe in the young earth (for the most part) are the ones that have a skewed understanding of the Bible. It's premise evolved from the Bible, or YEC, which makes it fall more into the Biblical creation camp than ID ever did.

If you have to include the supernatural to prove it then keep it out of the science lab and put it in a different classroom. Science is the study of the natural causes not the supernatural. If the supernatural (God) can be seen IN the natural sciences and not brought from outside the natural sciences and into the science lab then so be it.

Well I think that you would agree with me then that true science invokes some type of creationism... If so, natural causes do NOT have the "complete" answer as well which for the most part still holds true today. Which means...

[Jad]

No the point we are trying to make is HOW God did it, not IF He did it.

Ok.. My rebuttal was more against your statement "I cannot help but see a lot of what is going in the ID movement as null and void" which basically makes ID look silly. Again my response would be is that the case for ID is way too young to make any real stance for now. On the other hand, I don't think the DE has the right answer either... Both still need some research.

IF the ID movement insist on using the watchmaker analogy. I wasn't referring to anything else other than ID'ers who still use this argument, which is a lot.

I was specifically talking about the use of the watchmaker argument or any variant of it. I believe it is a faulty hypothesis. Like any good hypothesis in these areas if it cannot be backed up by reason (actual reality) there is no point in using it as a winning argument. If you don't believe it is faulty then please share why with all of us. I would like to be able to use this argument again but I cannot in my right mind do so considering John Mill's very plausible and reasonable argument against it.

To be honest with you I really haven't studied it too much. I believe it's basic premise is that structure came by three possible explanations that being chance, natural causes, or ID. If chance or natural chances could be nullified by observational science, then ID would be the logical choice. I would side with Rich Deem on this in the belief that the design of biological organisms is still in it's infancy, since many of the genetic tests of DE can not be completed due to incomplete databases of genetics. It's just too early to tell.. I don't believe it has WON anything...

More on that here: http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/sld019.html

And here: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... maker.html

The thing is I don't think chance can be nullified. How could we in our right mind render or declare something legally void or inoperative simply because it looks like chance to us as humans? Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Just because some things now look like chance to us does not mean they won't in the future when we've had the chance (pun intended hehe) to do a little more research on it. I think the ID'ers are a too quick to try and nullify chance simply because it only looks like chance to you and I. Again, watchmaker syndrome echoing loud and clear here.

I agree DE has not much to stand on.

I actually belief the study of micro-evolution and a young earth is much more likely to enter the science lab than ID is at this present stage.

Oh.. I think young earth science is an embarrassment to science. It has pretty much been repudiated in all scientific realms. The really sad thing about it is that I use to believe in it..

Like I already said "If micro-evolution over short periods of time (less than 10,000 years) is a scientifically sound argument without invoking at creator or designer, and using the same evidence the old earth micro-evolutionists use, then it should have no problem entering the science lab in our schools and universities." IF being the operative word here.

I think it can be studied without invoking creationism or religion whereas ID is still based on religion rather than science as the Denver courts have already proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm sorry to disagree with you again Jad. The only people that believe in the young earth (for the most part) are the ones that have a skewed understanding of the Bible. It's premise evolved from the Bible, or YEC, which makes it fall more into the Biblical creation camp than ID ever did.

Well there are a select few scientists out there that have become Christians because they see data pointing to a young earth. If that's the case then I think it's worth looking into because it seems some people don't have to have prepositional creationism to render the data plausible. I can't say the same for ID'ers and either can the court room.

If you have to include the supernatural to prove it then keep it out of the science lab and put it in a different classroom. Science is the study of the natural causes not the supernatural. If the supernatural (God) can be seen IN the natural sciences and not brought from outside the natural sciences and into the science lab then so be it.

Well I think that you would agree with me then that true science invokes some type of creationism... If so, natural causes do NOT have the "complete" answer as well which for the most part still holds true today. Which means...

I think it invokes creation not creationism. Some define Creationism as the belief in the literal interpretation of the creation record in the Bible. I don't hold to that. It invokes creation yes, the process in which God used to do it though I still have no idea.


-

[godslanguage]

Jad, can you please clarify why you think the watchmaker analogy has been refuted, in what sense exactly? I just think your jumping to a conclusion that it has been refuted because of a persons opinion in the 1800's. Also, do you believe that because it has been "refuted" in the 1800's, that it doesn't apply to the modern state in reference to the current scientific discoveries related to biological complexity. All I'm saying is that the watchmaker argument may not have been valid in the 18th century, however if strong evidence would show up in support of it, then it is perfectly valid to assume.

[godslanguage]

When you referred to observation as a key obstacle to refuting ID, your Old-time friend has also forgot to mention the "observable" Darwinian Evolution. The watchmaker argument would fail only if he replaced "dung" with Darwinian Evolution.

[Jad]

Jad, can you please clarify why you think the watchmaker analogy has been refuted, in what sense exactly? I just think your jumping to a conclusion that it has been refuted because of a persons opinion in the 1800's. Also, do you believe that because it has been "refuted" in the 1800's, that it doesn't apply to the modern state in reference to the current scientific discoveries related to biological complexity. All I'm saying is that the watchmaker argument may not have been valid in the 18th century, however if strong evidence would show up in support of it, then it is perfectly valid to assume.

To clarify I believe the watchmaker analogy is an invalid argument to use for the case of intelligent design because as humans we only think something is designed because we know that something by previous experience already. So a painting implies a painter only because we know by previous experience that paintings are put together by painters. If you'd never seen or experienced a painting before in your life you would have no idea there was a painter behind it at all. There are paintings in galleries all over the globe that look like they are designed to the individual and there are some that appear to have no design in them at all and just look like mess lol.
The same as me seeing an elephant in the clouds. If I'd never experienced elephants in my whole entire life previous to that I would have looked at the same cloud and seen something else or nothing at all.

This is not just some argument derived from the personal opinion of someone in the 1800's, it was one of the main arguments used in the Denver courtroom regarding the teaching of ID in public schools. That is were I first heard about it, when following the news updates on the Science Friday podcasts. So it's not something old and outdated, it most certainly applies to current scientific discoveries related to biological complexity as far as I know, and the courtroom for that matter. Now that's not say there are not other ways to argue the case for ID'ers. Again I am only referring to the watchmaker analogy and the variants of it.

The other thing ID'ers do is make out that chance alone could not do it. It begs the question, chance to who? Again it implies that if it looks like pure chance to the human mind then it cannot be valid. I think this is a wrong assumption. And yes you can turn my argument around on the Darwinian evolutionist as well like you have done in your signature, "Living systems only have the appearance of being evolved"

I hope that clarifies it a little better.

[godslanguage]

So a painting implies a painter only because we know by previous experience that paintings are put together by painters.

On the other hand, by the same token, if I didn't know what a painting looked like or what a painter does, I'd probably be curious as to how it put itself together into a frame, on a canvas and how the paint was applied to it, what chemicals and elements created the texture etc... (ie: the mechanism behind such a painting, even if that painting looked like either something I recognized or something I didn't recognize). I'd also compare something of that caricature to other natural components (which at that time I'd assume it came from nature since I don't know what a painting looked like or who a painter was). I don't have to know who the designer was or even what a painting was to determine something even as simple as object "X" must not have assembled itself.

This is not just some argument derived from the personal opinion of someone in the 1800's, it was one of the main arguments used in the Denver courtroom regarding the teaching of ID in public schools.

Well, it may have been valid back then when people didn't know much about anything, (ie: falling for Darwins hoax) but now its invalid. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now."

The other thing ID'ers do is make out that chance alone could not do it. It begs the question, chance to who? Again it implies that if it looks like pure chance to the human mind then it cannot be valid. I think this is a wrong assumption. And yes you can turn my argument around on the Darwinian evolutionist as well like you have done in your signature, "Living systems only have the appearance of being evolved"

This is non-sense. Mathematical concepts and models are universally applied, probabilities tend to go against this "favor in chance logic". So its not merely the human mind that denies DE to chance logic, its mathematical principles that tend to go against it. The current known variables that would determine the probability in self-assembly of the first living cell are not fully-known, respectively. However, even if more variables in regards to unknown properties of the universe to initiate the cause and effect sequence of events to assemble the first cell are found, the present high probabilities of those arrangements will still be significantly high. Many (Darwinists) expect the number to decrease significantly as more scientific research is endured, but what if this number gets increasingly higher?, what then? Do we still assume chance assembly logic can occur?

How is your argue different that chance assembly logic can occur based on the human mind and that it cannot occur based on the human mind? Or to put it in other words, how do you come to the conclusion that the mind favors non-chance assembly instead of chance assembly logic?

[godslanguage]

Darwinists haven't actually observed the "creator" Natural Selection & Random mutation + time (or NRT) for creating new species. NRT is the designer and creator of evolving species, yet they call it science. A science that states:

Science is about observations, we watch and observe to see what happens.

I'm sure "science" does this, but I'm not sure if scientists like to perform science. As a atheist scientist, would you hesitate to skip something that defies your pet theory of Darwinism.

They are as convinced that in the beginning, chance did it and then NRT did, as we are that God did it.