Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

[painted wolf]

One book.. however cleverly written does not a scientific argument make.

You can lament my "prejudice" all you want, but science didn't stop in the 1980's and pop-sci is never going to be justification for sweeping change in science.

Even "the Origin" wasn't allowed to get away with that. (and for good reason)
If you can not come up with something of more scientific substance and merit then you are not arguing science.... you are arguing philosophy.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

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

Great. Advance it. Saying, "This kind of well-known philosopher/thinker/whatever guy thinks it's true," is a lousy argument, especially when your guys are in the minority. Supporting your argument would mean reading, understanding, and actually responding to the points raised by others in the thread, not just answering, "But this famous guy thinks so." Many of us have pointed out that that the fine-tuning argument is incorrect, because it fails to take into account that life evolved to fit the universe, and you cannot conclude that the universe was created to support life. You have yet to respond to this key point.

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.

Yup. That's what we're doing. It doesn't.

No other standard should be applied.

So apply it. Stop saying, "So and so thinks so."

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.

Now convince us.

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.

Well, at least you try. But since you don't respond to your opponents' responses, you fail.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Wrong. As we established, it's not a scientific anything. It's a philosophical opinion based on scientific facts. Which is completley different from a scientific opinion. Do we need to go over that again? The difference between science and philosophy of science? And, once again, you have yet to supply the name of a single science book. Maybe you don't know what science is?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

NO, you haven't even acknowledged them, let alone covered. And I've read every one of your posts.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Show that the number is increasing.

Here's what you don't get. It's not a question of what scientists believe. Many scientists probably believe that Neil Diamond is a fantastic vocalist. That doesn't make that opinion science. Science is science and philosophy is philosophy. What you are doing is not science. No matter how many scientists love Neil Diamond, love of Neil Diamond is not science. (It's also not sane, but that would be a different thread.) No matter how many scientists think that new discoveries point to God or away, they do not do so in their role as scientists, and saying they do doesn't make it so. Again, you seem to be unable to either understand or remember the difference between science and non-science. This is undermining your credibility.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Ohmigod, puts the most educated, knowledgeable, patient, tolerant scientist on the board on ignore. What a schmuck.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Repeating your original point without responding to the many flaws that other posters have pointed out is not effective argumentation.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

And another valuable, intelligent, polite RF member gets the boot from sandor. Who's next?

It's not our job to read what you want us to read, sandor, it's your job to make your argument here in the thread, and cite passages from books you've read as they support your argument. That's our quaint custom here at RF.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

The universe's constants have a very narrow margin of success. Complex systems with low thresholds of catastrophic failure either require lots of chances (in which case you have to assert multiple universes for multiple opportunities) or creation and/or self-organization.

The thread has ceased being about scientific evidence for or against Intelligent Design about 15 pages ago. I know this because it is not possible to have scientific evidence one way or another. We simply have no empirical knowledge of the deeper structures of the universe/reality. End of that avenue of discussion.


What is relevant is whether or not people are willing to accept inductive reasoning PERIOD. If you can't accept that people make judgments about their world using inductive reasoning all the time, then try doing it for once. I dare anyone to try going about their day using only deductive reasoning. You aren't allowed to use probabilistic analysis of anything.

And if inductive reasoning is acceptable as evidence (not proof), then the anthropic principle starts to look like something consider. Look at how connected everything is at the quantum level. Everything we ever interact with entangles with us. What are the consequences of all this?


So we speculate because we are in the dark. The universe is elegant and mysterious; possibly self-organizing and a wondrous whole. The pursuit of science should be about love of the cosmos and admiration of its beauty not the pursuit of power over it. So when we cannot know for sure we should grasp, and maybe we take back something valuable. Some insight that will allow us to have an idea of where to start looking for "hard evidence."

MTF

 

[fantome profane]

Show that the number is increasing.

Here's what you don't get. It's not a question of what scientists believe. Many scientists probably believe that Neil Diamond is a fantastic vocalist. That doesn't make that opinion science. Science is science and philosophy is philosophy. What you are doing is not science. No matter how many scientists love Neil Diamond, love of Neil Diamond is not science. (It's also not sane, but that would be a different thread.) No matter how many scientists think that new discoveries point to God or away, they do not do so in their role as scientists, and saying they do doesn't make it so. Again, you seem to be unable to either understand or remember the difference between science and non-science. This is undermining your credibility.

Well said, but I dare you to listen to Sweet Caroline and not sing along. It can’t be done!

 

[fantome profane]

The universe's constants have a very narrow margin of success. Complex systems with low thresholds of catastrophic failure either require lots of chances (in which case you have to assert multiple universes for multiple opportunities) or creation and/or self-organization.

Success is a subjective term isn’t it. If you are assuming that one specific outcome defines success then you are also assuming the very thing your are trying to claim evidence of, namely intention. I don’t assume intention. Success in the context of the universe is meaningless.

I know this because it is not possible to have scientific evidence one way or another.

Thank you, that is all I am trying to say.

 

[camanintx]

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.

Did any of these books explain how these constants of physics came to be and exactly how different they could have been? A circle would not be a circle if the value of π was anything other than 3.14159..., yet that does not prove that it was designed because the value of π could not have been anything else.

 

[Autodidact]

Well said, but I dare you to listen to Sweet Caroline and not sing along. It can’t be done!

Anti-frubals to fantome for inflicting an evil ear-worm.

 

[Jose Fly]

Since Sandor's argument is "The Cosmological Anthropic Principle is evidence for ID creationism, and it's been proven because these guys say so", I suppose the appropriate response is...

The Cosmological Anthropic Principle is not evidence for ID creationism, and it's been proven because these guys say so....

The Fine Tuning Argument Revisited

The anthropic coincidences: A natural explanation

A Designer Universe?

Now what?

 

[sandor606]

Did any of these books explain how these constants of physics came to be and exactly how different they could have been? A circle would not be a circle if the value of π was anything other than 3.14159..., yet that does not prove that it was designed because the value of π could not have been anything else.

They say that it was out of necessity; that in order for a Universe that could support life and for evolution to develop human beings the constants had to be exactly what they are; they explain that any other value, even to the smallest degree, would have prevented the Universe from forming. They claim that in order to be exactly what they are to the nth decimal they had to have been designed because a Darwinian process of trial and error could not have accomplished that. That is the conclusion reached by the proponents; there are those who disagree, of course, and who still see the hand of chance and natural selection as the producers of these constants. However, this discovery, the proponents claim, is pointing in the direction of design, not chance.

 

[sandor606]

Since Sandor's argument is "The Cosmological Anthropic Principle is evidence for ID creationism, and it's been proven because these guys say so", I suppose the appropriate response is...

The Cosmological Anthropic Principle is not evidence for ID creationism, and it's been proven because these guys say so....

The Fine Tuning Argument Revisited

The anthropic coincidences: A natural explanation

A Designer Universe?

Now what?

I could do the same and support the ACP and ID with articles on the internet. Instead, I take the time and summarize the arguments. Please do the same and summarize the arguments of the opposition so we can have a discussion at the same level.

 

[sandor606]

One book.. however cleverly written does not a scientific argument make.

You can lament my "prejudice" all you want, but science didn't stop in the 1980's and pop-sci is never going to be justification for sweeping change in science.

Even "the Origin" wasn't allowed to get away with that. (and for good reason)
If you can not come up with something of more scientific substance and merit then you are not arguing science.... you are arguing philosophy.

wa:do

OK, whatever you say.:yes:

 

[sandor606]

One book.. however cleverly written does not a scientific argument make.

You can lament my "prejudice" all you want, but science didn't stop in the 1980's and pop-sci is never going to be justification for sweeping change in science.

Even "the Origin" wasn't allowed to get away with that. (and for good reason)
If you can not come up with something of more scientific substance and merit then you are not arguing science.... you are arguing philosophy.

wa:do

OK, whatever you say.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nearly 300 posts and not one iota of scientifc evidence backing ID? You'd figure with the armies of legitimate scientists out there working on the theory of intelligent design, that they would have come up with something by now.

 

[Willamena]

They say that it was out of necessity; that in order for a Universe that could support life and for evolution to develop human beings the constants had to be exactly what they are;

The thing about these constants is that they cannot and could not be anything other than what they are, because they are a measure of "what is".