Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

[Autodidact]

It's NOT MY assumption; it's the claim of the proponents who made the discoveries and describe them and their meaning in scientific books. You have not studied the books yet reject the notion. Since your mind is closed this will be my last post to you on this thread.

Oh, you're not advancing a position, just sharing someone else's position? O.K. thanks, fascinating. Please come back when you have a position that you want to advance.

 

[Autodidact]

You are entitled to your unsubstantiated opinion but they claim otherwise and go to great lenghts to prove it. You would give your opinion credibility if you study the books and disprove the evidence.

If they want to come to RF and advance their position, I look forward to talking to them. Similarly, if you want to advance a position, I look forward to talking to you. If you only want to inform us that someone else somewhere thinks something, thanks, I knew that already. This is a discussion forum, so please let me know when you want to discuss. Thanks.

 

[camanintx]

You are entitled to your unsubstantiated opinion but they claim otherwise and go to great lenghts to prove it. You would give your opinion credibility if you study the books and disprove the evidence.

Other than post some quotes where someone says that nature appears designed, you have not shown where they prove it. You would give your opinion credibility if you understood the difference.

 

[sandor606]

Oh, you're not advancing a position, just sharing someone else's position? O.K. thanks, fascinating. Please come back when you have a position that you want to advance.

The position I'm advancing and have from the beginning is that the following recent discoveries in the natural sciences are scientific evidence supporting intelligent design, the title of this thread. To wit:

The Constants of Nature
The Anthopic Cosmological Principle
The Genetic Code
The role of the Observer

The evidence from scientists with Ph.Ds and post-docs (hardly just 'someone else,' please!) must be judged on whether it does support ID or not. No other standard should be applied. The only way to do that is to study the material in-depth. Having done that for over 20 years (I began in 1987 with "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle") I am convinced it does. I use this scientific discovery - as well as the others on the list - to advance the ID notions that: a) the objective of evolution is the development of human beings; everything in the Universe must be exactly the way it is for this to occur; therefore, the Universe, life and its evolution were designed.

 

[painted wolf]

The Constants of Nature

like what?

The Anthopic Cosmological Principle

hasn't had any evidence added to it since the idea was floated in the 1980's

The Genetic Code

Lacks any sign of a designer.... nor does it need one.

The role of the Observer

The observer need not be conscious... plants do it all the time.

There is no empirical evidence of a designer. There isn't even any proposed way of looking for one.

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

Other than post some quotes where someone says that nature appears designed, you have not shown where they prove it. You would give your opinion credibility if you understood the difference.

Again, it's NOT my subjective opinion; it's a scientific opinion I agree with and extensive evidence is provided in scientific books, for some of which I provided titles and quotes.

 

[sandor606]

like what?


hasn't had any evidence added to it since the idea was floated in the 1980's


Lacks any sign of a designer.... nor does it need one.


The observer need not be conscious... plants do it all the time.

There is no empirical evidence of a designer. There isn't even any proposed way of looking for one.

wa:do

These points I already covered. If you don't read my posts I see no reason for further discussion. It makes me wonder, however, what the purpose of this thread is if scientific evidence supporting ID is rejected out of hand.

 

[fantome profane]

Again, it's NOT my subjective opinion; it's a scientific opinion I agree with and extensive evidence is provided in scientific books, for some of which I provided titles and quotes.

By “scientific opinion” you mean that it is the opinion of some scientists. But I.D. is still not a scientific theory, regardless of how many scientist believe it. It is not a falsifiable theory and it is not subject to empirical evidence.

 

[camanintx]

These points I already covered. If you don't read my posts I see no reason for further discussion. It makes me wonder, however, what the purpose of this thread is if scientific evidence supporting ID is rejected out of hand.

And we have explained why we don't agree with the hypothesis of a designed universe. Quoting from popular books does not constitute "scientific evidence" otherwise I could just quote from "God, The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist" as a rebuttal and we would get nowhere.

Why don't you pick an example you found in one of these books, explain why you think it constitutes scientific evidence for a designer, then we can discuss it. And please don't ask me to read the book myself, it is your opinion I want, not the authors.

 

[painted wolf]

These points I already covered. If you don't read my posts I see no reason for further discussion. It makes me wonder, however, what the purpose of this thread is if scientific evidence supporting ID is rejected out of hand.

I'm just wondering how pop-sci books printed in the 1980's .... with no experimental followup or support can in any way legitimize their ideas... however compelling on the surface.

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

By “scientific opinion” you mean that it is the opinion of some scientists. But I.D. is still not a scientific theory, regardless of how many scientist believe it. It is not a falsifiable theory and it is not subject to empirical evidence.

It is also the opinion/conclusion of (only) some scientists that the Universe and life can be explained without the need for a designer. However, in view of the nature of the empirical evidence of the new discoveries I listed, an increasing number of scientists are coming to believe that these can only be explained if they were designed.

 

[sandor606]

I'm just wondering how pop-sci books printed in the 1980's .... with no experimental followup or support can in any way legitimize their ideas... however compelling on the surface.

wa:do

Your opinion of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle as a pop-sci book without having studied it tells me more about you than I wish to know. Thus, the non-discussion between us has come to a skreeching halt.
Adios.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

By “scientific opinion” you mean that it is the opinion of some scientists. But I.D. is still not a scientific theory, regardless of how many scientist believe it. It is not a falsifiable theory and it is not subject to empirical evidence.

So I'm guessing that inductive validity is completely irrelevant to human life/existence? So when you are asked to serve on a jury you hold people to deductive standards of proof? So when you make a judgment about the kind of person they are you think someone who looks like a yakuza is just as likely to beat the hell out of you as someone who looks like an investment banker?

We make inductive assessments about our world all the time. The anthropic principle is a nice hypothesis. It is something that needs to be considered when you come to your own conclusions. It is right to point out that at our current level of scientific/technological ability the anthropic principle is not a part of science, but that is not the same as saying that it is not able to be used as evidence period in a debate.

MTF

 

[fantome profane]

It is also the opinion/conclusion of (only) some scientists that the Universe and life can be explained without the need for a designer.

Right! I absolutely agree and I hope I have not said something that would make you think otherwise. The conclusion that the universe (or life) came to be without a designer is a metaphysical conclusion, not a scientific one. All that science can do is attempt to find naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. Atheism is not a scientific position (regardless of what Dawkins may claim), and neither is I.D.

However, in view of the nature of the empirical evidence of the new discoveries I listed, an increasing number of scientists are coming to believe that these can only be explained if they were designed.

I am not sure that the numbers of scientists who believe this are actually increasing, but I don’t care. Even if they are, that does not make it a scientific concept. Even if thousands and thousands of scientists came around to this way of thinking it would not be evidence of Intelligent Design.

A conclusion may be incorrect, or only partially correct, but need not to be falsified.

I hope you understand that when I say it is not falsifiable I don’t just mean that it cannot actually be proven false, but rather that there is no theoretical evidence that could be imagined that could possibly prove it false. The concept of Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, which is a strong indication that it is not scientific.

Your opinion of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle as a pop-sci book without having studied it tells me more about you than I wish to know. Thus, the non-discussion between us has come to a skreeching halt.
Adios.

You are very quick to shut down debate when these ideas are challenged. Give us your evidence, give us your reasons. We have in fact explained to you why the anthropic principle and the cosmological constants are not evidence. If our criticisms of these concepts are invalid, show us how our criticisms are invalid. Tell us what is in these books that we have not heard a hundred times before and we may consider reading them. Don’t take this personally, this is a debate forum.

 

[sandor606]

And we have explained why we don't agree with the hypothesis of a designed universe. Quoting from popular books does not constitute "scientific evidence" otherwise I could just quote from "God, The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist" as a rebuttal and we would get nowhere.

Why don't you pick an example you found in one of these books, explain why you think it constitutes scientific evidence for a designer, then we can discuss it. And please don't ask me to read the book myself, it is your opinion I want, not the authors.

A discovery that impressed me greatly as evidence of design is the nature of the constants of physics. These are pure numbers whose just-so values - some very large as the strong force, some very small as the gravitational force - make the Universe what and as it is. There is general agreement among scientists that if their values had been a smidge different there would be no Universe and hence no life. What I find even more impressive as evidence is the fact that the values of these constants had to be precisely what they are if Man was to evolve on Earth. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle - Homo sapiens as the goal of life's evolution - explains the reason for the just-so values of the constants.

 

[sandor606]

You are very quick to shut down debate when these ideas are challenged. Give us your evidence, give us your reasons. We have in fact explained to you why the anthropic principle and the cosmological constants are not evidence. If our criticisms of these concepts are invalid, show us how our criticisms are invalid. Tell us what is in these books that we have not heard a hundred times before and we may consider reading them. Don’t take this personally, this is a debate forum.

I don't quit with you because my ideas are challenged - notice I am still conversing with others - I quit because you belittle and dismiss my books without reading them. Read them, then we talk
Adios.

 

[fantome profane]

So I'm guessing that inductive validity is completely irrelevant to human life/existence?

I do not reject inductive reasoning, but it is true that I prefer deductive. But I am not sure why you ask this. The opinion of scientists qualifies neither as inductive nor deductive reasoning. The fallacy of authority is not sound reasoning (and if it was it would count against I.D., but this is irrelevant).

So when you are asked to serve on a jury you hold people to deductive standards of proof? So when you make a judgment about the kind of person they are you think someone who looks like a yakuza is just as likely to beat the hell out of you as someone who looks like an investment banker?

I honestly don’t understand your point here. They way a person looks is not evidence of his guilt in an assault case.

We make inductive assessments about our world all the time. The anthropic principle is a nice hypothesis. It is something that needs to be considered when you come to your own conclusions. It is right to point out that at our current level of scientific/technological ability the anthropic principle is not a part of science, but that is not the same as saying that it is not able to be used as evidence period in a debate.

I don’t disagree, but the title of this thread is “Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design”, and as you say the anthropic principle is not part of science.

But if you wish my unscientific opinion (my own conclusion) I still find the using the anthropic principle as support of design to be egocentric and narrow. Potholes are not designed to fit puddles although they seem to be a perfect fit. I see no reason to think the universe was designed for humans, regardless of how good the fit is. I am sorry if that sounds offensive, but it is my personal unscientific opinion, please feel free to disregard.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't quit with you because my ideas are challenged - notice I am still conversing with others - I quit because you belittle and dismiss my books without reading them. Read them, then we talk
Adios.

Not just me, but also Painted Wolf. A pattern is emerging. I have to say I am honoured to be included in such company.

 

[sandor606]

Not just me, but also Painted Wolf. A pattern is emerging. I have to say I am honoured to be included in such company.

Anyone who belittles and dismisses these sources without having studied them is prejudiced and closed-minded. You and Painted Wolf are now in that company.

 

[fantome profane]

Anyone who belittles and dismisses these sources without having studied them is prejudiced and closed-minded. You and Painted Wolf are now in that company.

I am sure I have not said one word about these books. I am criticizing the argument of Design based in the anthropic principle and the cosmological constants.