Intelligent Design is (1) not science

[Autodidact]

Intelligent Design is (1) not science, because it is not falsifiable, (2) to the extent that it is science, it is wrong.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What is it you are wanting to debate? ID has nothing that can tested or observed. Since those things are required for science, there isn't much too debate.

 

[darkendless]

Intelligent Design is (1) not science, because it is not falsifiable, (2) to the extent that it is science, it is wrong.

I agree with you. Say no to ID and keep your critical analysis and complex reasoning alive.

 

[texan1]

Wait. I'm pretty sure it is science. Isn't it the "science of the gaps"?

 

[Autodidact]

Well, I was hoping to debate ID directly, rather than in the context of a movie or whatever. Waiting for an ID defender or proponent to come around so we can debate it.

 

[life.is.ravishing]

Well, I used be a big proponent of ID. Recently I became a "full-fledged creationist" though. But I'll take the bait and try to help you understand the mindset.

Intelligent Design is not pure science, thus, why it does not meet your requirements for science. It is a mixture of science and faith. I used to think of it as "an intelligent Christian's view of the beginning." It's for those Christians that have a strong faith, but also see value in science. I would write more here but I'm sure you've heard all these arguments before.

One question I have for you though, is why all the animostiy? You guys finally have some Christians that believe in evolution- shouldn't that excite you?

Peace

C

 

[Caladan]

Well, I used be a big proponent of ID. Recently I became a "full-fledged creationist" though. But I'll take the bait and try to help you understand the mindset.

Intelligent Design is not pure science, thus, why it does not meet your requirements for science. It is a mixture of science and faith. I used to think of it as "an intelligent Christian's view of the beginning." It's for those Christians that have a strong faith, but also see value in science. I would write more here but I'm sure you've heard all these arguments before.

One question I have for you though, is why all the animostiy? You guys finally have some Christians that believe in evolution- shouldn't that excite you?

Peace

C

Faith and science? if you mean in the sense of having faith in gravity each time you throw a stone in the air, then yes. if you mean merging science with mythology then, why bother to do science at all?

Mixing false information with science is not exciting, the truth mixed with lies is some of the worst kind of truth.

 

[fantome profane]

One question I have for you though, is why all the animostiy? You guys finally have some Christians that believe in evolution- shouldn't that excite you?

A persons religious affiliation makes no difference to the science. Science is science whether you are a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, Pagan, Taoist or whatever.


Btw, welcome to the board.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wait. I'm pretty sure it is science. Isn't it the "science of the gaps"?

No, it's not science. For something to be scientific, it has to adhere to the scientific method. It would need to make falsifiable claims, for one.

Basically, ID is religious belief with enough trappings of science thrown onto it to mislead some people into letting into public school science classrooms. It's not science, it's creationism in a lab coat.

Intelligent Design is not pure science, thus, why it does not meet your requirements for science. It is a mixture of science and faith. I used to think of it as "an intelligent Christian's view of the beginning." It's for those Christians that have a strong faith, but also see value in science. I would write more here but I'm sure you've heard all these arguments before.

Throwing something away that one values seems to me to be strange behaviour.

One question I have for you though, is why all the animostiy? You guys finally have some Christians that believe in evolution- shouldn't that excite you?

There have been plenty of Christians that believe in evolution the whole time. What's different now is that other Christians have decided that there's not enough religion in public schools. I suppose that does get me excited, but not in a good way.

 

[life.is.ravishing]

Faith and science? if you mean in the sense of having faith in gravity each time you throw a stone in the air, then yes. if you mean merging science with mythology then, why bother to do science at all?

Mixing false information with science is not exciting, the truth mixed with lies is some of the worst kind of truth.

I understand that you feel like that. That seems to be the general opinion of most evolutionist/atheists. However, I don't really know how much more I can say to that. Debating over this will be pointless. Because as long as it's about whether or not God is "mythology" or "lies," I am sure neither one of us is going to convince the other. I'm sure we've both heard numerous arguments either way and are set firmly in our beliefs as they are. I was simply trying to offer a little insight into why people that believe in Intelligent Design believe as they do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand that you feel like that. That seems to be the general opinion of most evolutionist/atheists. However, I don't really know how much more I can say to that. Debating over this will be pointless. Because as long as it's about whether or not God is "mythology" or "lies," I am sure neither one of us is going to convince the other. I'm sure we've both heard numerous arguments either way and are set firmly in our beliefs as they are. I was simply trying to offer a little insight into why people that believe in Intelligent Design believe as they do.

It's not about whether or not God is "mythology" or "lies", it's about whether statements like these are lies:

- Irreducible complexity is falsifiable
- The eye, the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting are all examples of irreducible complexity
- "Intelligent Designer" does not mean "God"
- ID is not a religious concept
- Evolution is a "theory in crisis"

... which they are.

 

[life.is.ravishing]

A persons religious affiliation makes no difference to the science. Science is science whether you are a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, Pagan, Taoist or whatever.


Btw, welcome to the board.

I was just trying to say that it seems odd to me that so many evolutionists are so opposed to intelligent design, even though those people believe in evolution as well. Oh, and btw, thanks.

There have been plenty of Christians that believe in evolution the whole time. What's different now is that other Christians have decided that there's not enough religion in public schools. I suppose that does get me excited, but not in a good way.

Ah, see, this I can understand. I do strongly believe in separation of church and state. When teaching science, teach science theories. When teaching religion, teach religion. Even as a creationist I still think it's wrong to teach creationism in science class. In the end, we all make our own decisions anyway.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ah, see, this I can understand. I do strongly believe in separation of church and state. When teaching science, teach science theories. When teaching religion, teach religion. Even as a creationist I still think it's wrong to teach creationism in science class. In the end, we all make our own decisions anyway.

Right. And since ID is at its core a movement to introduce religion to public school science classes, you can understand why it bothers some people, can't you?

 

[life.is.ravishing]

It's not about whether or not God is "mythology" or "lies", it's about lies like these:

Okay... here we go.

- Irreducible complexity is falsifiable

Yes, this is a lie. Irreducible complexity is not falsifialble. Unless we were to try to start up the universe as you think it started and see what we came up with over millions of years...

- The eye, the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting are all examples of irreducible complexity

Well, I think this is only a lie when stated as a definite fact. If one believes in ID, then those would be examples of irreducible complexity. But it would be based upon a theory. Just as all of our beliefs are.

- "Intelligent Designer" does not mean "God"

You're saying this is a lie that people are saying, then? So who are they saying the "Intelliegent Designer" is? I've always taken it to be God... Hmmm...

- ID is not a religious concept

This would also be a lie then. Although if the above statement is true about some IDers, then I suppose this could also be true to them, depending on what "other being" they believe is doing the "designing." I've never heard these above two before though...

- Evolution is a "theory in crisis"

Haha, you guys have more believers than ever it seems like. I wouldn't say you were a theory in crisis. I theory I don't believe in, sure, but "in crisis"?

 

[Dunemeister]

I think the question is one of metaphysics. Currently, science operates on an assumed physicalist metaphysic. That is, for all intents and purposes, the only "stuff" is physical "stuff." As a result, anything that implies or presupposes the action of a divinity is ruled out of court immediately and by definition.

This is not the only way science has ever operated. Scientists throughout the centuries have operated with different assumptions about the way the universe is constituted. And I see modern ID supporters as people who want to do science with a different metaphysic. They want to assume the existence of God rather than assume his nonexistence. And frankly, I don't see why science cannot proceed on the assumption of God's existence. Note that this is not a direct support for ID. Rather, I'm arguing that there's no good reason to privilege a physicalist metaphysic.

 

[life.is.ravishing]

Right. And since ID is at its core a movement to introduce religion to public school science classes, you can understand why it bothers some people, can't you?

Yes, I can see that. Very much so. It just seems to me like many evolutionists are against ID all together, and I was curious as to why they would dislike it so much when ID still believes in evolution. If it really is just about the school thing though, then I can understand that.

 

[fantome profane]

I think the question is one of metaphysics. Currently, science operates on an assumed physicalist metaphysic. That is, for all intents and purposes, the only "stuff" is physical "stuff." As a result, anything that implies or presupposes the action of a divinity is ruled out of court immediately and by definition.

This is not the only way science has ever operated. Scientists throughout the centuries have operated with different assumptions about the way the universe is constituted. And I see modern ID supporters as people who want to do science with a different metaphysic. They want to assume the existence of God rather than assume his nonexistence. And frankly, I don't see why science cannot proceed on the assumption of God's existence. Note that this is not a direct support for ID. Rather, I'm arguing that there's no good reason to privilege a physicalist metaphysic.

Can you give us an example of a scientific discovery or breakthrough that is not derived from this “physicalist metaphysic”? Can you imagine one that could come in the future?

 

[Caladan]

Yes, I can see that. Very much so. It just seems to me like many evolutionists are against ID all together, and I was curious as to why they would dislike it so much when ID still believes in evolution. If it really is just about the school thing though, then I can understand that.

Can you describe me the kind of evolution they believe?

 

[Autodidact]

Well, I used be a big proponent of ID. Recently I became a "full-fledged creationist" though. But I'll take the bait and try to help you understand the mindset.

What makes you think that I'm interested in your mindset? I understand ID mindset just fine, that's not the issue of this thread. The issue of this thread is whether ID is (1) science (2) insofar as it is science, correct.

Intelligent Design is not pure science, thus, why it does not meet your requirements for science.

My requirements? Why do you presume what my requirements are. Did you mean maybe science's requirements?

It is a mixture of science and faith. I used to think of it as "an intelligent Christian's view of the beginning." It's for those Christians that have a strong faith, but also see value in science. I would write more here but I'm sure you've heard all these arguments before.

That's interesting. Because ID proponents themselves say that it is not Christian, and it is not necessary to be Christian to advocate ID. Do you disagree?

One question I have for you though, is why all the animostiy? You guys finally have some Christians that believe in evolution- shouldn't that excite you?

Peace

C

What animosity? I merely asserted some things that I think are true about Intelligent Design. Do you agree or disagree? Why are you reading animosity into that? Toward whom? And why are you talking about Christians and evolution? What does that have to do with it?

I don't care in particular what Christians do or don't believe; they believe a lot of odd things. I do care about the truth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, this is a lie. Irreducible complexity is not falsifialble. Unless we were to try to start up the universe as you think it started and see what we came up with over millions of years...

Right. Therefore ID is not a scientific claim.

Well, I think this is only a lie when stated as a definite fact. If one believes in ID, then those would be examples of irreducible complexity. But it would be based upon a theory. Just as all of our beliefs are.

I think it's a lie, for two big reasons:

- all three "examples" have been disproven. Plausible pathways exist for each to have evolved in accordance with the prinicples of evolution.
- even before this, the claims were over-statements and logical fallacies. In this case, they were examples of the argument from ignorance fallacy: the idea of irreducible complexity assumes that because we do not know a way a feature evolved, it could not have evolved.

You're saying this is a lie that people are saying, then? So who are they saying the "Intelliegent Designer" is? I've always taken it to be God... Hmmm...

Yes, that's a claim at the heart of ID. If the "Intelligent Designer" is acknowledged as God, then ID is outed as a religious belief. This would make it ineligible to be part of public school science curricula, which was the whole point of the movement.

This would also be a lie then. Although if the above statement is true about some IDers, then I suppose this could also be true to them, depending on what "other being" they believe is doing the "designing." I've never heard these above two before though...

Really?

Without these two points, you don't have ID.

The ID movement was a response to the US Supreme Court ordering that "creation science" material not be taught in public schools because of the First Amendment. The people who had a vested interest in getting religion into public schools went back and re-tooled creation science in an attempt to make it fit the Constitutional requirements (or so they thought) but still work toward their aim of getting their religious beliefs taught to kids in public schools. The result was "Intelligent Design".

Haha, you guys have more believers than ever it seems like. I wouldn't say you were a theory in crisis. I theory I don't believe in, sure, but "in crisis"?

Yes, there are a fair number of people who believe in evolution. The "theory in crisis" line is part of the ID movement's campaign to introduce their material by having schools "teach the controversy": they try to mislead policy-makers and the public about the state of evolutionary theory in an attempt to get ID introduced into schools as a way to supposedly teach all sides of the issue of the development of life.