Intelligent Design is (1) not science

[life.is.ravishing]

Can you describe me the kind of evolution they believe?

As best I can. Apparently I was a little out of touch with some of the ID movement, as some of the things in 9-10ths_Penguin's reply suprised me (not believing the "intelligent designer" is God?) But, anyways, speaking purely for myself, when I was for ID I always believed in evolution occuring just how you guys say it does. "Soup" of elements and everything. The only difference I ever believed in was that of it "happening by random chance." I always believed that God had to be behind it. But save for that, my timeline of events was identical to yours.

 

[Autodidact]

evolutionist/atheists.

Here's a big problem in your thinking. Evolution is a scientific theory in the field of Biology. It is not atheism, and has nothing to do with atheism. You either think this scientific theory is correct, or reject science, or think it's incorrect. Do you understand the different between atheism, which is the believe there is no God, and the Theory of Evolution, which is the Biological theory that the diversity of species one earth results from descent with modification plus natural selection?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

It is about the school thing, but that's all there is to ID. That's what the whole point of the ID movement was: to sneak religion into public schools.

 

[Autodidact]

Debating over this will be pointless.

If you think so, then don't debate.

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.

Why are you talking about God? Did someone bring up God? Why? What does God have to do with it? I thought that ID was not supposed to be religious.

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.

In that case you might want to start a thread on that subject. This one is about the validity of ID, not why people believe it despite its invalidity.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Who believes in evolution? What does it even mean to "believe in" a scientific theory? It's not a religion, it's a scientific theory.

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.

Great.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

No, ID does not believe in evolution, whatever that would mean. ID is a political and religious movement to disguise creationism as science and get it taught in the public schools, in opposition to evolution. However, the more sciencey ID proponents to mostly admit that ToE is mostly true, such as say Michael Behe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As best I can. Apparently I was a little out of touch with some of the ID movement, as some of the things in 9-10ths_Penguin's reply suprised me (not believing the "intelligent designer" is God?) But, anyways, speaking purely for myself, when I was for ID I always believed in evolution occuring just how you guys say it does. "Soup" of elements and everything. The only difference I ever believed in was that of it "happening by random chance." I always believed that God had to be behind it. But save for that, my timeline of events was identical to yours.

Okay... terminology time:

Intelligent design: the claim that evolutionary mechanisms are not sufficient to explain the history of life on Earth and that an "intelligent designer" must have made direct modifications to life at some points in Earth's history.

Theistic evolution: the belief that evolution was used as a tool by God in His creation. It may include the belief that God planted the first seeds of life on Earth or that He set evolution in motion with a particular end goal in mind.

It sounds to me like you're more of an adherent of theistic evolution than intelligent design.

 

[Autodidact]

As best I can. Apparently I was a little out of touch with some of the ID movement, as some of the things in 9-10ths_Penguin's reply suprised me (not believing the "intelligent designer" is God?) But, anyways, speaking purely for myself, when I was for ID I always believed in evolution occuring just how you guys say it does. "Soup" of elements and everything. The only difference I ever believed in was that of it "happening by random chance." I always believed that God had to be behind it. But save for that, my timeline of events was identical to yours.

I think you're confusing Intelligent Design with Theistic Evolution. They are two different things entirely.

 

[Caladan]

As best I can. Apparently I was a little out of touch with some of the ID movement, as some of the things in 9-10ths_Penguin's reply suprised me (not believing the "intelligent designer" is God?) But, anyways, speaking purely for myself, when I was for ID I always believed in evolution occuring just how you guys say it does. "Soup" of elements and everything. The only difference I ever believed in was that of it "happening by random chance." I always believed that God had to be behind it. But save for that, my timeline of events was identical to yours.

What about early hominids? human evolution? neanderthals? natural selection?

 

[life.is.ravishing]

Hi Autodidcat. I by no means meant to be rude in any of my posts at all, and I'm sorry if you took them that way.

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.

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

Sure, sciences requirements. ID is no more science than the theory of evolution is a law. However, it does have scientific elements, such as evolution. Is ID correct? I don't know. While I don't believe it is, I don't know if we'll ever really know the truth until this life is over and we go on to meet our Creator or just decompose. As things are today, neither theory can be proved correct. Thus, we are forced to go upon our own faith or lack thereof.

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?

Wow, apparently a lot of this new ID movement has missed my small town. A lot of this is new to me. I suppose ID in itself is not inherently Christian. I mean, look at the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster! haha. But no, if one was to believe a giant big rabbit is truly the driving force behind evolution, they would not be a Christian, but would still believe in ID. Therefore, ID may not be necessarily Christian, but most definitely religious.

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 was not saying you in particular were displaying animosity. It was simply something I had observed from many people against ID, and it seemed relevant to the topic, so I asked about it. I was simply curious, but recieved answers, so I've had that cleared up.

I do care about the truth.

As do I... as do I.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wow, apparently a lot of this new ID movement has missed my small town. A lot of this is new to me. I suppose ID in itself is not inherently Christian. I mean, look at the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster! haha. But no, if one was to believe a giant big rabbit is truly the driving force behind evolution, they would not be a Christian, but would still believe in ID. Therefore, ID may not be necessarily Christian, but most definitely religious.

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody religion intended to point out that the "intelligent designer" of the ID movement is nothing more than a thinly-veiled version of the Abrahamic God. It was a satirical response to the ID movement... calling ID's bluff about being non-religious, basically.

 

[life.is.ravishing]

OH boy. Too many replies to keep up with. Just a few quickies.

I think you're confusing Intelligent Design with Theistic Evolution.

Hmmm... yes, I think you're right. Out here (tiny town) it's all taught as the same. My bad. And sorry for the *very* apparent confusion.

Who believes in evolution? What does it even mean to "believe in" a scientific theory? It's not a religion, it's a scientific theory.

It's a theory, not a law of science. Therefore you have to "believe" in it to a certain degree.

I thought that ID was not supposed to be religious.

Can someone please explain to me how ID could not be religious? An "intelligent designer," but not religious? I mean, really, how is that not religious?

This one is about the validity of ID, not why people believe it despite its invalidity.

Well, that seems a moot point to me. Because in the end, you can never really prove ID with the evidence we have, both for and against it.

Again, sorry for the confusion.

 

[life.is.ravishing]

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody religion intended to point out that the "intelligent designer" of the ID movement is nothing more than a thinly-veiled version of the Abrahamic God. It was a satirical response to the ID movement... calling ID's bluff about being non-religious, basically.

I know... I was trying to make a joke. Not a very good one, obviously...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmmm... yes, I think you're right. Out here (tiny town) it's all taught as the same. My bad. And sorry for the *very* apparent confusion.

No worries. I think the ID movement chose their name to be misleading, so it's quite understandable.

It's a theory, not a law of science. Therefore you have to "believe" in it to a certain degree.

That's not the difference between a scientific theory and a law. A theory doesn't become a law when it has enough evidence. Laws and theories are two different concepts. The topic's been done to death, so I'll just quote someone else rather than re-hash the whole thing again:

Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.

Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

Source

Can someone please explain to me how ID could not be religious? An "intelligent designer," but not religious? I mean, really, how is that not religious?

The ID movement claims that because they don't specify which intelligent designer it might be (could be the Christian God, or it could be Zeus... maybe it was super-intelligent aliens! We're open to anything... wink, wink), it's not religious. Personally, I think that argument is a load of hooey.

 

[life.is.ravishing]

The ID movement claims that because they don't specify which intelligent designer it might be (could be the Christian God, or it could be Zeus... maybe it was super-intelligent aliens! We're open to anything... wink, wink), it's not religious. Personally, I think that argument is a load of hooey.

Haha... yes, I would agree.

 

[fantome profane]

ID is no more science than the theory of evolution is a law. However, it does have scientific elements, such as evolution. Is ID correct?

All right here we go. I would like to try to correct this apparent misconception.

Before I do however let me just say I hope you don’t feel like you are being ganged up on here. It is just that there are a lot of us here who feel the need to defend the truth.

First the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. The word “theory” when used in the scientific sense does not mean that it is simply a guess or a hunch or something that we are not sure of yet. Quite the opposite actually. A scientific theory is a coherent framework used to explain observed phenomena. It is use to explain observations and to make predictions. It must be subject to observable evidence. In fact something does not get to be called a theory in the scientific community until it has been proven. This does not mean that it has been proven beyond question, nothing in science, absolutely nothing is ever proven beyond doubt. It is an important scientific value to question everything.

A common misunderstanding is that once a theory has been proved it becomes a Law or a fact. This is not the case. Germ theory is still referred to as germ theory, the theory that the earth revolves around the sun is referred to as the heliocentric theory, and Einstein’s theory is still referred to as the theory of relativity. In science a Law is simply a description of observed phenomena. That is it, nothing more, just a description (often a mathematical description) of relatively simple phenomena. A theory is the explanation of those phenomena. A theory is actually a higher level of understanding than a Law.

To repeat, the theory of evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, meaning that it has been proven. Intelligent design on the other hand is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not subject to evidence, it is not provable or falsifiable, it does not make predictions or explain anything.

And I apologize if this is getting a bit heavy. I hope you find this educational.

 

[life.is.ravishing]

Before I do however let me just say I hope you don’t feel like you are being ganged up on here. It is just that there are a lot of us here who feel the need to defend the truth.

Haha, no, it's actually quite interesting to hear the other point of view. It's what this forum is for, right?

I hope you find this educational.

Yes, much so. Let me just say those Biology books sophmore year did not know what they were talking about.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., life I see where you were coming from. Yes, you were confusing ID, which does irritate me greatly, with theistic evolution, which doesn't. Other than that I basically agree with everything you said, except that, as fantome pointed out, you share a common misconception about what a scientific theory is. But yes, I totally agree, and Intelligent Designer who's not a God? Like, hello?

 

[Caladan]

Intelligent Designer who's not a God? Like, hello?

Maybe its a galactic production line? efficient, and in it for pure business, no divinity involved.

seriously though, why does an intelligent designer must be God? what about a vast intelligence field behind reality? a universal force, without human-like traits?

 

[Dunemeister]

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?

Strictly speaking, none of them have been "derived" from physicalism. Newton, Planck, Einstein, and countless others operated with a much different metaphysic and still managed to contribute to science. Newton and Einstein were theists. So I'm not sure whence the hullaballoo over people who wish to take seriously BOTH their theistic commitments and their scientific commitments.

Whether ID is a science or not shouldn't depend on whether its presuppositions come from the bible, devotion to the FSM, or anything else. What matters is whether the people proposing it make testable assumptions and use other tried and true scientific methodologies. To the extent that ID fails muster on THOSE grounds, it still has to prove itself as a science.

That said, evolution is, as far as I know, unfalsifiable. The persistent lack of transitional forms in the fossil record (an apparent falsification) is usually got round by pointing to putative transitional forms that are routinely debunked later. This has been especially true in studies of human evolution. So the hope is always held out that the next dig will turn up the "smoking gun" transitional form. And the continuing difficulty of defining a transitional form without vicious circularity is another serious obstacle to discussing the question. So if falsifiability is the sine qua non of scientific theories, evolution has a serious challenge of its own.

That's not to say that ID and evolution are equally adequate. I don't know enough about either theory to comment on that. Evolution, even if not falsifiable, is to be preferred over rivals because it more adequately explains the data. And if so, it deserves the nod.