A simple explanation why there is no "Intelligent Desig

[mathmystic]

It is argued that Intelligent Design can be proved scientifically. Let us examine the scientific process, and then apply it to the concept of an intelligent designer.


The Scientific process consists of:

Prediction - using universal truths of logic/mathematics
Testing - using universal truths of arithmetic
Measurement - by experiment

Essentially a scientific theory is used to predict results, after which experimentation is used to measure reality, in order to test whether the measurements match the predictions.

Where possible scientists try to express their theories using mathematical equations. This allows precise corollaries to be drawn using analytical logic. Some corollaries branch across the mathematical spectrum, hopefully ensuring a variety of ways to rigorously test the original theory.

The beauty of universal truths is that they hold in any place or time in the universe, in any frame of reference. If you are accelerating at 100 times the speed of sound within a few feet of a black hole then 1 plus 2 still equals 3. Results in boolean algebra/analytic logic are similarly resistant to changes in location etc.

Very importantly this universality protects the independence of the scientist, wherever he/she may be located in space and time.

The bane of the scientist down the millennia, however, has been the accuracy of the tools by which he/she measures results. If the measurements don't match the predictions then either the theory is wrong, or else there is something wrong with the measuring equipment - i.e. the experiment.

Just over a 100 years ago there was a major advance in experimentation. Albert Einstein postulated that the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference. This has meant a recalibration of all measuring equipment in the scientific world - previously the dimensions of the earth were used to calibrate.

So possibly, if Einstein is right, we have a "perfect" set up whereby scientific prediction, measurement, and testing can all be done independently in any part of the universe, using universal truths at each stage.

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.

[sandy_mcd]

nope

[mathmystic]

Surely you can do better than that ...

[Jbuza]

you run with that.

The supernatural may have an impact on the natural world. IT is clear that God as a supernatural designer has an impact ont he physical world.

But just the same are you trying to convince others there is no God or Just yourself?

[mathmystic]

The supernatural may have an impact on the natural world

Granted, but this does not mean that the supernatural can be studied in the science classroom. Actually its a contradiction in terms.


I believe deeply in God, but not one that can be studied in the science classroom. Not a God that can be predicted, measured and tested.

I believe in a God that surpasses all understanding.


What about you?

[Jbuza]

No I think he made us so that we can understand him, so that we will seek him. I think he has revealed himself to us in ways that can be studied and measured and quantified.

I agree his fullness is hidden from us, and he is greater than our understanding.

[mathmystic]

ways that can be studied, measured and quantified

Sorry but you can't study, measure or quantify the supernatural - it's a contradiction in terms (just look up the definition). The supernatural is just there - you don't get to understand it with science. That's what supernatural actually means!

I agree his fullness is hidden from us, and he is greater than our understanding.

glad we agree on that bit then

[B. W.]

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.

Every experiment used to prove evolutionary processes was made by someone who had intelligently designed the test/experiment. Therefore, intelligent design is probable.

Next, Mathematical probability reveals that some things are just impossible to just happen. Remember, Darwin intelligently developed his theory and others adapted to it as well.

Also Physics / Mathematics prove there is an order to the universe — a measurable design.

Being able to deduce these equations / formulas takes intelligence. Intelligence of itself proves design. If these things exist, and there is a design and pattern to the entire natural world as well as mathematics, then there must be a head designer somewhere desiring to engage our own intelligence for some intention.

Just the fact we can use our intelligence to attempt to prove or disprove God existence reveals another measurable means to note intelligent design at work. If our own intelligence exists, so can, in all probability, another far greater intelligent designer, or designers, also exist due to the design and pattern of the entire natural world as well as mathematics.

Therefore, from our own existence and arguments we can note two great intelligent designers at work: one designer with intelligence busy blinding people to reject God's existence and another intelligent designer busy revealing that He, God, does indeed exist. How? by engaging our human intelligence.

What camp do you choose to reside? - One that rejects God rationally well? Or one that rationally accepts God as He is? If one rationally or irrationally rejects, God, why would God want to live next to you forever?

Where do you want to reside? You and I have a 50/50 chance to make the correct intelligent decision. Why make the wrong one that offers no return?
-
-
-

[mathmystic]

Interestingly you offer absolutely nothing to refute the simple systemic argument above as to the impossibility of an “Intelligent Designer” that can be studied in the science classroom.

I believe in God, but not a scientifically provable God. Proof precludes the need for faith. Faith is necessary simply because there is no proof.

Reading through your comments, though it appears you think of God as a “rational God” who thinks like humans — designing things like we might do.

I don't believe in a God who thinks like humans, however. This seems to me how we differ.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

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.

By what definition? And nonsense. Who says that if you can detect something, it is therefore part of the natural world? (It depends on what you mean of detect of course). So, I can't sense emotions, are they now supernatural? If something supernatural leaves behind physical evidence of its work-what then?

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.

Non-sequitor. If we use a designer's artifacts to determine that such a being exists-how do you come to the conclusion that the designer is natural?

The beauty of universal truths is that they hold in any place or time in the universe, in any frame of reference. If you are accelerating at 100 times the speed of sound within a few feet of a black hole then 1 plus 2 still equals 3. Results in boolean algebra/analytic logic are similarly resistant to changes in location etc.

Do provide evidence. Show experiments conducted in all reaches of the universe showing that everything's the same. Please. This is what is called an assumption.

It is argued that Intelligent Design can be proved scientifically. Let us examine the scientific process, and then apply it to the concept of an intelligent designer.

What do you mean by prove?

Granted, but this does not mean that the supernatural can be studied in the science classroom. Actually its a contradiction in terms.

What does this have to do with anything? Who says this is what ID is trying to get done? I'm also pretty sure quantum mechanics...can't be studied in the science classroom. So, this is now not science by your asserted definition.

I believe deeply in God, but not one that can be studied in the science classroom. Not a God that can be predicted, measured and tested.

You misunderstand ID. ID never claims to be able to measure God-or that God is the designer. It claims that, maybe, just maybe, the appearance of design is caused by a designer. I mean, even Dawkins acknowledges this appearance of design when he says, from what I remember, that biology is the "study of things that have the appearance of design"

Sorry but you can't study, measure or quantify the supernatural - it's a contradiction in terms (just look up the definition). The supernatural is just there - you don't get to understand it with science. That's what supernatural actually means!

What does this have to do with ID? ID does not try to do this!

Interestingly you offer absolutely nothing to refute the simple systemic argument above as to the impossibility of an “Intelligent Designer” that can be studied in the science classroom.

Your argument does not require a rebuttal because it collapses upon itself.

I believe in God, but not a scientifically provable God. Proof precludes the need for faith. Faith is necessary simply because there is no proof.

Do look up a Biblical definition of faith.

[Zenith]

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.

unless the intelligent designer was always present, in which case it was not created.

[mathmystic]

Who says that if you can detect something, it is therefore part of the natural world? (It depends on what you mean of detect of course).

It indeed depends on what I mean by detect. What I actually wrote was:

is supernatural then by definition it cannot be detected through scientific experiment

This is the whole point. The precept of ID is that design can be somehow "scientifically proven". ID goes on to infer a (unspecified) designer of some shape or form.

ID never claims to be able to measure God-or that God is the designer.

No it doesn't, but I respectfully think you may do. Certainly if one thinks the intelligent designer is God then the implication is that God can be scientifically studied - predicted, measured and tested.

Meanwhile I just showed how simple logical argument can be used on the premise: "A designer exists" (and ID does say a designer exists). Either the designer or designers is/are natural or supernatural. Either way it produces nonsense - hence the premise is wrong.


I didn't invoke God, evolution, Darwin or Dawkins. I explicitly avoided them. I mentioned God later just to clarify that I deeply believe in Him.

[mathmystic]

unless the intelligent designer was always present, in which case it was not created

At what point did I say that the intelligent designer was created?

[August]

Meanwhile I just showed how simple logical argument can be used on the premise: "A designer exists" (and ID does say a designer exists). Either the designer or designers is/are natural or supernatural. Either way it produces nonsense - hence the premise is wrong.

I don't think your logic works, there are many disiplines that detect intelligence and design. Archeology and forensics are examples. So you are going to have to explain much better how you arrive at the conclusion that there is no designer if the designer is "natural".

[mathmystic]

Do provide evidence ... This is what is called an assumption

Just to be clear here: are you suggesting that there is some point in time and space in the universe where:
a) 1 + 2 does not equal 3
b) Mathematical logic does not hold
c) The speed of light is not constant

Let me know about a) as I would be happy to set up a casino there
If b) then in that place no logical theory would hold, including the one about the intelligent designer
c) you may be right and Albert Einstein et al may be wrong