ID related question

[Yerda]

According to ID, life is too complex, too improbable, too something to have formed naturally and is the work of a designer.

The intelligent designer was therefore presumably not alive. How can the intelligent designer have possessed intelligence then?

Your thoughts would be appreciated because I'm puzzled by this.

Cheers.

 

[Fluffy]

The normal way around this, truthseekingsoul, is to argue that the designer did not get created but was always in existence. In other words it had no beginning.

I suppose another way around such a pit fall might be to say that the original argument only applies to life as we know it. Therefore, other forms of life, which we have not come across, might be less complex and less improbable and so more reasonable to be created via evolution or some other process. The creator might be one such life form.

 

[Yerda]

The normal way around this, truthseekingsoul, is to argue that the designer did not get created but was always in existence. In other words it had no beginning.

I suppose another way around such a pit fall might be to say that the original argument only applies to life as we know it. Therefore, other forms of life, which we have not come across, might be less complex and less improbable and so more reasonable to be created via evolution or some other process. The creator might be one such life form.

Yes, we could probably sit around hypothesising all sorts of wonderful ideas. But these people claim to be scientists or followers of science at least.

On several occasions, attacks on abiogenesis (on which I know bugger all currently) replaced debate on evolution seemingly in order to fudge the issue. 'Why have we no examples of life forming naturally?' I'm frequently asked. 'It's hardly empirical science!'

My question then is where are our examples of disembodied intelligences roaming around creating life? And how can we test this idea?

How can we build any useful, revealing, predictive model around this proposition?

Where is the science in invocation of apparently supernatural and conveniently unidentifiable designers?

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Where is the science in invocation of apparently supernatural and conveniently unidentifiable designers?

Please don't kill me for this, but according to the bible, the evidence of God is all around us.
Romans 1:20 'Men cannot say they do not know about God. From the beginning of the world, men could see what God is like through the things He has made.This shows His power that lasts forever. It shows that He is God.'

I've heard evolutionists say when they look at certain animals or humans, that 'it is a miracle of evolution!' even they can't understand how evolution could have come up with such a thing. they are indirectly giving credit to the creator...

 

[Yerda]

I've heard evolutionists say when they look at certain animals or humans, that 'it is a miracle of evolution!' even they can't understand how evolution could have come up with such a thing. they are indirectly giving credit to the creator...

...evolution.

 

[Fluffy]

Yes, we could probably sit around hypothesising all sorts of wonderful ideas. But these people claim to be scientists or followers of science at least.

I am a proponent of ID and I am not a scientist nor do I claim it to be a science since neither would be truthful. Surely such a thing is not relevant to the question "The intelligent designer was therefore presumably not alive. How can the intelligent designer have possessed intelligence then?"

On several occasions, attacks on abiogenesis (on which I know bugger all currently) replaced debate on evolution seemingly in order to fudge the issue. Why have we no examples of life forming naturally? I'm frequently asked. It's hardly empirical science!

My question then is where are our examples of disembodied intelligences roaming around creating life? And how can we test this idea?

Attacking abiogenesis is not an attempt to "fudge" the issue or at least it is certainly not my intention. However, I accept evolution and I do not accept abiogenesis so it would be far more logical for me to attack the latter rather than the former.

You are missing the point of the call for evidence in support of abiogenesis. Such a thing is often done by people who readily admit that ID is not a science and are perfectly willing to be proved wrong. Their complaint is that whilst their ideas are treated as philosophy, and rightly so, abiogenesis is treated as science when it shouldn't be for the exact same reasons that ID should not be. This is not an attempt to show ID to be better than abiogenesis but simply a request for equal treatment as far as the definition of science is concerned.

If someone is able to test either theory scientifically then I would be more than happy to see them place such ideas in the realms of science. Nobody as done so yet, however, and so neither qualify.

How can we build any useful, revealing, predictive model around this proposition?

I don't think we can. Is that a necessary requirement of something for it to be potentially valid?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Fluffy-- The "intelligent designer" of ID is defined to be supernatural. Thus, by definition, it is outside the scope of science. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is defined to be natural and mechanistic. Now, whether or not abiogenesis is a well supported scientific theory is one matter....but it is within the scope of scientific inquiry. Supernatural claims (such as ID) are not.

 

[Quiddity]

If I believe He started it and created it but then left it to evolution, is that categorized as an ID?

~Victor

 

[Fluffy]

Fluffy-- The "intelligent designer" of ID is defined to be supernatural. Thus, by definition, it is outside the scope of science. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is defined to be natural and mechanistic. Now, whether or not abiogenesis is a well supported scientific theory is one matter....but it is within the scope of scientific inquiry. Supernatural claims (such as ID) are not.

:O Intelligent design is by no means limited to the supernatural! Where does it say such a thing like that? Besides, supernatural as a term is far overused, in my opinion. Something which is defined as supernatural today becomes natural 10 or 20 years down the line when science understands it.

My god and goddess are perfectly natural. Absolutely nothing supernatural about them. They are certainly beyond the realms of science at this time but not because they are supernatural.

If I believe He started it and created it but then left it to evolution, is that categorized as an ID?

Yup

 

[Quiddity]

Yup

Technically wouldn't that be that He created not designed. Intelligent design would mean that he as involved with abiogenesis and so on. That's not what I hold. So why categorize it as ID?

~Victor

 

[Fluffy]

If I believe He started it and created it but then left it to evolution, is that categorized as an ID?

If by it, you mean life, then this is cannot exist alongside abiogenesis.

Technically wouldn't that be that He created not designed. Intelligent design would mean that he as involved with abiogenesis and so on. That's not what I hold. So why categorize it as ID?

You cannot create something without also having a design specification. Therefore he either formulated this specification (and so designed it) or he got it from somewhere else. If it is the latter one you mean then I suppose what you believe would not be included with ID although it would be an immensely interesting assumption, in my opinion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

:O Intelligent design is by no means limited to the supernatural!

Oh, I see--Intelligent Design is "beyond" the supernatural, huh? Well then I guess it's fully within the bounds of empirical science...

Where does it say such a thing like that?

Proponents of ID wouldn't dare come right out and that their Intelligent Designer is supernatural, as that would scratch their "theory" from possibly being included in a science curriculum. The term "Intelligent Design theory" was coined sometime around the 60's, as a scientific-sounding codeword for Creationism (which had been thrown out by U.S. courts as a legitimate subject to be taught in public school science classes). What distinguishes ID from other beliefs in a deity's participation in humankind's existence is that ID claims to be a scientific theory. Also, ID is extremely ambiguous. At http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ , for example, ID is defined as a theory which holds that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection." Amazingly, they have summed up the entire "theory" not with an essay, but with half a sentence. (The other half of the sentence predictably argues against the explanatory power of evolution--not *for* ID.) But what in the world is an "intelligent cause"? How does one distinguish between an "intelligent cause" a "mildly above-average cause" and a "bit on the dim side cause"? What sort of experiment could be set up which, if there were no "intelligent cause", would show this to be the case? Perhaps most importantly, what does an "intelligent cause" do: does it make new species appear out of thin air, or does it modify old species, and over what period of time, and how? These questions are left unanswered, because "ID" is just a codeword for Creationism, which relies on supernatural explanations and therefore requires no natural, mechanistic ones.

Now, you can believe what you want, Fluffy, and call it whatever you want; but when I refer to Intelligent Design, I'm referring to something like the "theory" posted on the intelligentdesignnetwork website.

Besides, supernatural as a term is far overused, in my opinion. Something which is defined as supernatural today becomes natural 10 or 20 years down the line when science understands it.

Well, no. Even before scientists fully understood electricity and magnetism, those phenomena were not "defined" as supernatural, nor were the theories proposed to explain them. ID is, by definition, supernatural....but if you believe in something and you don't believe it is supernatural, by all means share with us what falsifiable predictions your "theory" makes. (In other words, please provide a method by which one could empirically test whether or not an "intelligent designer" created the universe and/or humankind.)

My god and goddess are perfectly natural. Absolutely nothing supernatural about them. They are certainly beyond the realms of science at this time but not because they are supernatural.

That might be reassuring to those who already believe, as you do, in your god and goddess, but it's not very convincing to the rest of us.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If by it, you mean life, then this is cannot exist alongside abiogenesis.

Nonsense, abiogenesis in no way excludes the actions and/or existence of any supernatural (or "beyond supernatural") entities. God(s) could have created the first cells by snapping his/her/its/their almighty fingers, or he/she/it/they could have set up the laws of chemistry and physics to make abiogenesis inevitable. (Or some combination of the two above explanations.)

You cannot create something without also having a design specification.

Now that's just silly, fluffy. I can create lots of things with absolutely no design specification. Look, I'm taking out a piece of paper....now I'm drawing some abstract lines....there. I began with no "design specification," yet somehow I've managed to create something.

[edited to add the following]

I don't think we can. Is that a necessary requirement of something for it to be potentially valid?

Ah, here's the problem, Fluffy. A useful, predictive, revealing model (as truthseekingsoul said) is a necessary requirement for something to be scientifically valid. Of course, just because something is not scientific does not mean it is invalid.

 

[Yerda]

Thanks for your response, Fluffy.

You said:

I am a proponent of ID and I am not a scientist nor do I claim it to be a science since neither would be truthful.

Which is fine with me.

There are people with whom I have conversed who have made such claims (demands more often). Kbc_1963, Lisa, and Steve (I think), are members of this forum who have argued in favour of ID being classified as science. Kbc wrote quite a lengthy synopsis of his ideas and what he considered supporting evidence (which normally amounts to evolution/abiogenesis is wrong because...).

Surely such a thing is not relevant to the question "The intelligent designer was therefore presumably not alive. How can the intelligent designer have possessed intelligence then?"

Not exactly no. You see, I was being disingenious. My intention was to initiate some discussion with an ID proponent and hopefully find out where the science comes into h/er/is theories.

Eternal immaterial gods, aliens, radically different lifeforms (the kind of things you mentioned), these are the sort of things suggested yet thoroughly unsuported. I was hoping, beyond reason it seems, that a little evidence might poke its way in.

Attacking abiogenesis is not an attempt to "fudge" the issue or at least it is certainly not my intention. However, I accept evolution and I do not accept abiogenesis so it would be far more logical for me to attack the latter rather than the former.

Perfectly reasonable, but not when evolution is the topic at hand.

You are missing the point of the call for evidence in support of abiogenesis....This is not an attempt to show ID to be better than abiogenesis but simply a request for equal treatment as far as the definition of science is concerned... If someone is able to test either theory scientifically then I would be more than happy to see them place such ideas in the realms of science. Nobody as done so yet, however, and so neither qualify.

In all fairness I don't think I've missed the point. There is evidence for abiogenesis (although quite underwhelming) and the theories are being tested.

Is that a necessary requirement of something for it to be potentially valid?

The model thing? In terms of science, a model would be lovely. A bit of testing and falsifying would be just cushty as well.

 

[Fade]

According to ID, life is too complex, too improbable, too something to have formed naturally and is the work of a designer.

The intelligent designer was therefore presumably not alive. How can the intelligent designer have possessed intelligence then?

Your thoughts would be appreciated because I'm puzzled by this.

Cheers.

The way I look at it is that the ID/Creationists contention is an argument from ignorance. Basically the universe is too complex for me to understand therefore God or The Great Arclesnoot sneezed it into existence. The whole concept is just one enormous Strawman.
For example : Irreducible complexity and for that matter the basic concept of ID can be reversed on the ID proponent by asking who designed the designer? The argument is kind of a verbal infinite loop and is a great way to give any rational debater a migraine.
I personally refuse to engage in debate with creationists or IDists (lol) until they come up with a valid scientific argument. it can't be treated as science if it isn't scientific!

 

[michel]

My my, but you're so unbiassed!:biglaugh:

 

[Fade]

I know, I wear my heart on my sleeve

 

[michel]

I know, I wear my heart on my sleeve

just out of interest, do you think that there is a scientific explanation for absolutely every thing that we know of ?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

just out of interest, do you think that there is a scientific explanation for absolutely every thing that we know of ?

Just out of curiosity, on what grounds would something be beyond the scope of science.

 

[Fade]

just out of interest, do you think that there is a scientific explanation for absolutely every thing that we know of ?

I believe that there is a rational explanation for everything. I also believe that it is impossible to know everything, but it is a goal I'm willing to shoot for