Should ID be taught in public schools?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

ID claims that something irreducibly complex cannot arise through natural processes so doesn't that imply that the designer is acting supernaturally.

It has a choice: it switches between what you say and the claim that something irreducibly complex cannot arise through known processes. It then does a bait-and-switch game to replace "known" with "natural", so that it can invoke the supernatural designer. The end result is an excellent example of the fallacy of false dichotomy: ID proponents try to make it seem like if you don't accept every jot and tittle of evolutionary theory, you must then accept their answer of deliberate design by an intelligent and supernatural creator entity. They gloss over the fact that there are a number of other possible explanations, such as an unknown but natural mechanism, a supernatural but unintentional cause, or deliberate design by a stupid supernatural entity.

Of course, all this is moot until someone comes up with a valid case of irreducible complexity, which hasn't happened yet.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

As for ID and supernaturalism:

"...the "supernatural" cannot be observed, and thus historical scientists applying uniformitarian reasoning cannot appeal to the supernatural.

Well that answers it right there. If the supposed supernatural cannot be observed then how do you know it's supernatural? How does one assign intelligence to a negative? It sounds like fantasy.

If the intelligence responsible for life was supernatural, science could only infer the prior action of intelligence, but could not determine whether the intelligence was supernatural."

That's a very big "IF"......Since the supposed intelligence cannot be observed then it is moot to speculate whether an unknown is intelligent or not. One could argue that if there is a creator then he/she/it is not intelligent but still responsible for life.....but even that is an unknown.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

ID should be taught in French or German so at least the kids would be learning something. Latin or Greek would be even better.

 

[Magic Man]

I have carefully considered your explanation across multiple posts and, respectfully, I still find myself still disagreeing with you. I maintain that it is possible to be a true agnostic and still support the idea-proper of ID. If the fact that devout agnostics who support ID is not enough, then perhaps this essay will help you, I do hope you get a chance to read it through:

Metaphysical Naturalism and Intelligent Design

I would love to hear from an agnostic who believes in ID. It seems to me to be completely inconsistent. To believe that there is some intelligent being that designed the universe, and yet not necessarily believe in some intelligent being that designed the universe? How is that possible?

As for ID and supernaturalism:

"...the "supernatural" cannot be observed, and thus historical scientists applying uniformitarian reasoning cannot appeal to the supernatural. If the intelligence responsible for life was supernatural, science could only infer the prior action of intelligence, but could not determine whether the intelligence was supernatural."

CSC - Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent Design Doesn't Identify the Designer

What? The point is that ID holds that some being designed the universe, inherently implying that that designer is not part of the universe, but outside of it. That would make it supernatural. I don't understand the point of all of these distinctions. It's simple. ID holds that a supernatural intelligent being designed the universe. Why distort it into something else?

 

[Alceste]

It's simple. ID holds that a supernatural intelligent being designed the universe. Why distort it into something else?

To get the good news out to all those children in heathen schools that stubbornly refuse to teach religious explanations for the basic facts of nature. Those darn schools act like they think it's illegal for the state to promote religion! From a religious propagandist's perspective, the distortion and deception is surely necessary for the greater good of society. How else are you going to get religion into school under such hostile conditions?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

To get the good news out to all those children in heathen schools that stubbornly refuse to teach religious explanations for the basic facts of nature. Those darn schools act like they think it's illegal for the state to promote religion! From a religious propagandist's perspective, the distortion and deception is surely necessary for the greater good of society. How else are you going to get religion into school under such hostile conditions?

Ken Ham knows how....

YouTube - Ken Ham Creationism Crazytalk Clip Show

 

[camanintx]

Ken Ham knows how....

YouTube - Ken Ham Creationism Crazytalk Clip Show

Tomorrow's headline: Man's head explodes while watching video on the internet.

 

[Magic Man]

Ken Ham knows how....

YouTube - Ken Ham Creationism Crazytalk Clip Show

:cover: :areyoucra :run:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Tomorrow's headline: Man's head explodes while watching video on the internet.

Teee heee.....

Yeah I watch way too much of this stuff on Youtube....


But you know...sometimes this is the best way to catch people in their element.....I mean....written words on paper or on the internet can't really capture the way a person really expresses him or herself......The wonderful world of video/audio gives you a glimpse into the mentality of some people...and that guy is a brainwashing nutsy coo coo....(IMO).....

 

[rocketman]

I would love to hear from an agnostic who believes in ID. It seems to me to be completely inconsistent. To believe that there is some intelligent being that designed the universe, and yet not necessarily believe in some intelligent being that designed the universe? How is that possible?

I had hoped you would have understood that essay. I can only leave you with this quote from it as a reminder of what it was about: "we should see that efforts of that sort are entirely misdirected. They cannot and do not support the theistic claims of their promoters, but at best only support the idea of some sort of extra-dimensional creature(s) who "created" our universe. While any creature of that sort would be a scientific wonder for us to study, it would not be a "God." " He is an agnostic by the way, and he is as right about the idea-proper as he is about IDs misdirected efforts.

What? The point is that ID holds that some being designed the universe, inherently implying that that designer is not part of the universe, but outside of it. That would make it supernatural.

No it doesn't. It could be from a parallel universe, as silly as that may sound. And no, that would not make it a supernatural diety.

 

[rocketman]

I agree that an agnostic can support the idea of ID but that doesn't make ID agnostic (Greek for unknowable).

I agree with the first part of this sentence and while I appreciate the latter I would point out that when I say that ID is agnostic I am refereing to the idea-proper (not the people!) and where the word agnostic is an adjective that is applied to say that the theistic and/or atheistc origin is unknowable.

 

[Alceste]

I agree with the first part of this sentence and while I appreciate the latter I would point out that when I say that ID is agnostic I am refereing to the idea-proper (not the people!) and where the word agnostic is an adjective that is applied to say that the theistic and/or atheistc origin is unknowable.

What you don't seem to be acknowledging is that there is no such thing as an idea separated from the people.

A theistic person (ie one who believes in supernatural intelligence) is not an agnostic.
An agnostic person (ie one who does not believe in supernatural intelligence) does not necessarily subscribe to theistic arguments.

 

[rocketman]

What you don't seem to be acknowledging is that there is no such thing as an idea separated from the people.

A theistic person (ie one who believes in supernatural intelligence) is not an agnostic.
An agnostic person (ie one who does not believe in supernatural intelligence) does not necessarily subscribe to theistic arguments.

An idea can be agnostic. That's all I'm saying. I also used the word neutral earlier in this thread if you prefer that. Either way, it is possible for an agnostic to follow the idea. If the idea-proper demanded a supernatural causation then things would be different, but as the agnostic Schultz pointed out in that essay I quoted, it does not automatically follow that a supernatural casuation is required for the idea.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

An idea can be agnostic.

No, it can not.

 

[Alceste]

...but as the agnostic Schultz pointed out in that essay I quoted, it does not automatically follow that a supernatural casuation is required for the idea.

Just plain wrong. The title "intelligent design" automatically indicates a belief in an intelligent designer- a supernatural causation. Intelligent design = supernatural causation. Why is this difficult for creationists to see? We heathens have no trouble with it.

 

[Magic Man]

I had hoped you would have understood that essay. I can only leave you with this quote from it as a reminder of what it was about: "we should see that efforts of that sort are entirely misdirected. They cannot and do not support the theistic claims of their promoters, but at best only support the idea of some sort of extra-dimensional creature(s) who "created" our universe. While any creature of that sort would be a scientific wonder for us to study, it would not be a "God." " He is an agnostic by the way, and he is as right about the idea-proper as he is about IDs misdirected efforts.

I'm sorry to say that I have not had time to read the article, nor do I see much point in it. It doesn't matter how you say it, ID is not and cannot be agnostic. "Some sort of extra-dimensional creature(s) who created our universe" would indeed be "God". They would be nothing else. That's the whole idea. He either is not agnostic, or he doesn't actually believe in ID. You cannot do both. If you say it's some sort of alien that created the universe, you're merely trying to mince words to get around the question of "God". Any sort of alien being that created the universe is the definition of a theistic God.

No it doesn't. It could be from a parallel universe, as silly as that may sound. And no, that would not make it a supernatural diety.

Yes, it still would. I don't care where it came from. If it created this universe, it was not a part of it, and had all of the powers that any theist would attribute to God, therefore it would only be a supernatural deity. Besides, if that were the case, then ID would hold that something else created the parallel universe where that particular being came from. The point is that ID holds that some intelligent being started everything that exists. That means such a thing not only created our universe in your example, but the parallel universe and any other universe that exists. Then that being would be "God".

I just don't understand why you don't want to call an apple an apple.

 

[Magic Man]

An idea can be agnostic.

To quote Jay, "No, it can not."

That's all I'm saying. I also used the word neutral earlier in this thread if you prefer that. Either way, it is possible for an agnostic to follow the idea. If the idea-proper demanded a supernatural causation then things would be different, but as the agnostic Schultz pointed out in that essay I quoted, it does not automatically follow that a supernatural casuation is required for the idea.

The idea is not neutral. It is inherently theistic. It is not possible for an agnostic to believe in this idea. You keep using the term "idea-proper". There is no need. ID is ID. It is nothing else. It does automatically follow that a supernatural causation is required for the idea. That is the entire point of the idea! Without a supernatural causation, there is no ID at all.

 

[rocketman]

No, it can not.

Sir, an idea can be agnostic. Philosphers use the expression often when talking about ideas. In this case it's an adjective.

"If we are neutral about externalism we are agnostic about the nature of that factor."

Transparent Experience and the Availability of Qualia

That's not a bad example of the equality between the two terms I have been using in relation to the nature of the idea-proper of ID, namely, neutral and agnostic. If you prefer I use the term neutral when refereing to the idea-proper I'll be happy to do so.

 

[rocketman]

Just plain wrong. The title "intelligent design" automatically indicates a belief in an intelligent designer- a supernatural causation. Intelligent design = supernatural causation. Why is this difficult for creationists to see? We heathens have no trouble with it.

You have it back to front. Creationists do see this plain as day. But the idea-proper of ID does not specify such a thing. I think the agnostic Schultz is right with his assesment of the idea-proper. I think he is also right with his assesment that the movement is misdirected.

And I'm not advocating ID or creationism, just trying to set the record straight.

 

[rocketman]

I'm sorry to say that I have not had time to read the article, nor do I see much point in it.

And I'm sorry to say it shows. Well, don't say that I didn't show you where an agnostic, who is not an IDer (ie: not biased for them), wrote an essay that explains why the designer doesn't necessarily have to be "God'.

Yes, it still would. I don't care where it came from. If it created this universe, it was not a part of it, and had all of the powers that any theist would attribute to God, therefore it would only be a supernatural deity.

Right, so according to your reasoning, all those scientists working on folding space theories, string theories and so on are conducting a study of the supernatural. (!)

Besides, if that were the case, then ID would hold that something else created the parallel universe where that particular being came from.

The idea-proper does allows for a completely unspecified extra dimesnional causation, which in turn allows for an agnostic person to follow ID if they wish, not that they would find a falsifiable hypothesis present.

The point is that ID holds that some intelligent being started everything that exists.

No it doesn't. Only our universe. And with the larger emphasis on biology.