The problem with ID is *not* that it doesn't fit the facts.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Evolution and intelligent design are two theories about "why things are the way they are".


:- Both of them are entirely consistent with all the observable evidence:

No-one has yet come across a biological phenomenon that couldn't have evolved, and no-one has yet come across a biological phenomenon that couldn't be that way because God willed it to be that way.

:- Both of them can explain observed phenomena.

Indeed, ID actually provides *more* explanations - every observed phenomena can be explained by "it's that way because God willed it to be that way", whereas there are still plenty of things the evolution of which is not yet fully understood.

:- But only one of them has any predictive power.

Understanding the process of evolution permits us not merely to explain what we already know, but to make guesses and find answers to the things we don't. ID, by contrast, has literally no predictive power - God could have willed it to be red, or he could have willed it to be blue, and we have no way of knowing in advance.


That's why it's so vital that schools go on teaching evolution rather than ID - it enables science and technology to progress rather than simply standing still and accepting.

[paulsby]

1. also, the problem with ID is that it is not SCIENCE

that's what it comes down to.

the issue isn't who is right? the ID people MAY be right. i don't have perfect knowledge.

but science says we use the scientific method to increase knowledge, and ID is apart from science.

i have no problem with ID being discussed, like maybe in a philosophy class, but it should NOT be in any science curriculum, because it isn't science.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. "Is it true" and "is it useful" are better questions than "is it science", I think.

I think the two important questions when deciding whether or not to teach something are "is it true" and "is it useful"; "is it science" is a question basically of academic interest only.

In the case of ID, the answers are "we have no reason to believe it is" and "not at all".

If there was evidence that ID was true, or if there were questions that it was useful in answering, I would have no problems with it being taught in science classes, whether or not it was technically science.

[paulsby]

8. i disagree

ID is perfectly useful to discuss in philosophy class, and perfectly useful to be adopted as a theory to look into

at a minimum, it influences enough people that it should be studied because if you are studying philosophy you should look at various philosophical concepts that raise questions, that move people, that answer questions, etc.

ID fits

[KittyWampus]

14. You do realize that Science itself has two core Philosophies and that neither is the de facto

correct one?

Just curious.

Because the majority of DU'ers will argue the case for Reductionism and Materialism without even realizing they are doing so and without comprehending the drawbacks contained in that perspective.

And they will summarily dismiss Holism and Idealism without comprehending the benefits gained from that perspective.

[paulsby]

17. i am well aware of that

i also studied a LOT of philosophy and i don't see a problem with ID being discussed in a philosophy class.

it is just another form of metaphysics, specifically a cosmology.

[KittyWampus]

21. Well, if you understood the fact that neither philosophy of Science is the absolute right one

The it shouldn't bother you when the facts and observations obtained during all phases of Scientific Inquiry aren't JUST filtered through a Materialistic view point.

Intelligent Design, where it doesn't just masquerade as an excuse to posit the existence of a Divine Person, is an attempt to survey the Empirical data through an Idealistic view point.

Note, I do not support I.D. when it is used by Religious types to insert their belief in a God into the discussion.

I do support the inclusion of I.D. when it is used by Scientists and Thinkers who point out the possibility of Intelligence and Consciousness as being a priori states of Being from which all further forms of being descend.

I am not a theist, btw. I end up being labeled an Atheist and Pan-theist.

[paulsby]

23. but again

it isn't whether any particular scientific theory IS the right one.

it is - whether or not we are discussing SCIENCE or metaphysics (a branch of philosophy)

if we are discussing the theory of evolution, we are having a discussion about a scientific theory.

if we are discussing ID, we are having a discussion about a cosmology.

i am well aware that we can fuzzify the line between science (tm) and philosophy.

but when you have things are clearly in two different camps (evolution vs. ID), it's not necessarily to quibble.

imnsho

[FarCenter]

25. Intelligence and Consciousness don't seem to be necessary for science

Scientific observations don't necessarily involve observations by anything with a mind. In fact automated scientific instrumentation is the more likely case.

Automated scientific experiments work as indicated by scientific theory, even in the absence of human observers. E.g. robots on Mars perform experiments 20 minutes before humans could be aware of the results.

[Gman2]

2. If truth were told, Intelligent Design, SHOULD be called Ad Hoc

[MNDemNY]

3. I think it should just be called "made-up shit" just like religion.

[Gman2]

16. That is redundant.. I am a christian, just not the type you are familiar with.

I aint stupid. Nor dogmatic.

[MNDemNY]

19. But you believe in a "god"??? How? Why?

[Gman2]

26. As for me personally,

There is a savior myth in all cultures. There is a simple uniformity to the design of creation. There is a cosmic basis to unselfishness. When I feel at one with nature and his playground, I am happy. The regularity of physics, and the fight of DNA against the third law of thermodynamics, is also persuasive. The persistence of life, and the losing of it by degrees, teaches us all the lessons Jesus lauded. Dying unto yourself. Your ego, is what traps you.

The ego makes you fear, hurt, lash out. All the evils of man, stem from the realization of his mortality, and his prefering his comfort above all others, including excluding others, if they interfere with that comfort.

[seabeyond]

27. Your ego, is what traps you.

hallelujah and amen, brother, wink

get beyond ego and one with self, universe, all.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. The third law of thermodynamics?!

As the temperature of a system approaches absolute zero, the entropy of that system approaches zero?

Really?!

I think you're getting your Creationist jargon all confused.

[Gman2]

30. Got no creationist jargon.

DNA is anti-entropy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Well, no, it's not Creationist jargon.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is creationist jargon.

That's why I said you're confused.

The third law is an even more ridiculous application of physics.

"DNA is anti-entropy"

ORLY?! Explain cancer.

[Gman2]

32. cancer is anti-entropy also. We just dont like it all that well.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. As a general rule, people should not argue scientific concepts they do not understand.

Cancer originates because of mistakes in the genetic code- errors caused by mutations. Mutations cause disorder, which is an example of entropy, albeit a not particularly technical one.

If you take a molecule of DNA and put it in a box. Then heat the box. Then the molecule of DNA becomes hot, in full accordance with the first law of thermodynamics.

If you take a molecule of DNA and put it in a box. The DNA eventually becomes disordered, in full accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.

If you take a molecule of DNA and put it in a box. Then cool the box. Then the entropy of the molecule decreases, in full accordance with the third law of thermodynamics.

Now what you mean to say, if you had a better grasp of the Creationist literature that you appear to be reading, is that DNA can not become more complicated due to evolution, because things becoming more complicated violates the laws of physics.

Except that is also wrong, because the 2nd law of thermodynamics involves closed and isolated systems. E.g., a box.

[Gman2]

37. I dont see any of that making me wrong! I didnt say how cancer is created.

And as to your strawman that I am a creationist, or intelligent design, you are dead wrong. I dont believe in lamarck, nor fluffy clouds and harps. Your smallminded view of christianity must have something to do with your being wronged by one. I will apologize for them. I am sorry.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. You don't see it because you don't understand it. But you're still wrong.

Not only is it evident you've been getting your "information" from creationists, you are, ipso facto, a creationist.

(It's OK to come out and admit it. Remember what the ten commandments say about giving false witness.)

We've shown you're into Creationist material because you're citing this tired old, thoroughly debunked 2nd law rhetoric which only appears in cut-rate Creationst literature. Futhermore, we can see it's gone through a few iterations, because you've gotten it wrong. You've substituted the 3rd law for the 2nd. It's like the childhood game of telephone. Purple monkey dishwasher. Ironically, a bit of a parody of the second law right there.

You're also arguing against science and evolution, and implying that some magical pixie caused it all to happen. Ergo, Creationism.

"Your smallminded view of christianity must have something to do with your being wronged by one."

My views of Christianity, Gman2, have nothing to do with your inability to understand high school level physics, chemistry, or biology.

[Gman2]

42. You are so ridiculously wrong, it is laughable.

I am a moldmaker, process/automation engineer. I am nothing like your charicature.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. Yet here you are, arguing Creationism.

You being a moldmaker also has nothing to do with anything.

[Gman2]

46. Where? You need to pay closer attention. I have NOTHING against evolution.

I study Bonobo's as an amateur.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. "the fight of DNA against the third law of thermodynamics"

"DNA is anti-entropy"

"I study Bonobo's as an amateur."

You study Bonobo's what?

[Gman2]

50. I study our closest cousins. Ya know, that whole evolution thingie?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. I know bonobos, sure.

But Bonobo's what?

Well, you did say you were an amateur.

What does that mean, anyway? You study bonobos as an amateur? You watched a show on Discovery?

[Gman2]

54. I am close personal friends with all of them at the San Diego zoo.

I read Goodall and Dewaal. You seem to be a bit of an ass. You also feel yourself superior intellectually. That would be a mistake for you to draw that conclusion.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. "That would be a mistake for you to draw that conclusion."

"DNA and cancer are anti-entropy"

Yeah, I think I've got my bases covered.

[FarCenter]

4. The Universe was created last Tuesday

It was just Intelligently Designed to look older.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. Now there's a theory that *does* have predictive power.

"The universe was created by God, but he deliberately made it look like it ws done by evolution" theory has some holes in it, but it *does* enable us to predict stuff, just as effectively as "the universe really did evolve", by studying evolution.

[FarCenter]

18. Actually, it doesn't, since God can edit the Universe at any time

Tomorrow he can recreate the Universe in a slightly different way. With a different pre-history and a different projected future.

Actually, the Universe is a projection of the collective consiousness of all humans taken together. This means that as science advances, the Universe changes. For example, before Einstein and after Newton, space was three dimensional and "flat". After Einstein concieved of his theories, the Universe became relatavistic and curved.

Way back, the world was actually the back of a giant turtle.

[Kazak]

38. All the way down?

:shrug:

[LiberalFighter]

5. If Intelligent Design was so intelligent

Nature and life would not have changed (evolved). Because it would had been perfect. If life and nature are not perfect then either god is also not perfect or there is no god. If god is not perfect then it wasn't a god.

[Marr]

9. No, ID doesn't explain observable evidence and is in fact disproven by the natural world.

If we assume that god, the perfect designer, built this world and all the creatures in it, why is nature full of errors, useless parts, and flat out poor design? Why do land mammals develop gills in the womb, and then lose them? What's up with the prostate's poor positioning? How about the appendix? Why do dolphins have finger bones? Why is the world full of the fossilized remains of extinct species? All of these things (and a million more like them) counter the idea of an "intelligent designer" and support the idea of evolution.

[FarCenter]

13. Then there's the old chestnut about how the design of women proves that God is a Civil Engineer

Who else would put the playground next to the sewage plant?

[KittyWampus]

15. Actually, it was theorized and then later observed that Reality is non-Local. One can posit

Intelligence and/or Consciousness being the Prime Cause or the basis of Material Reality without positing the existence of a Creator.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. A creationist named Cryingshame used to post the same thing regularly.

Didn't make any sense then either.

[Marr]

36. Pseudo-scientific gobbledygook.

You used a lot of scientific sounding words to basically say, "we can't know what happened before the Big Bang, therefore, god did it". That's pushing a fairy tale into the next blind corner, nothing more.

Besides, the OP is referring to the idea of "Intelligent Design", which unambiguously describes the idea of an intelligent god consciously crafting a world.

[Kazak]

39. I don't know about you, but...

my nose drains almost directly into my mouth! :o

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. ID explains observed phenomenon and is consistent with evidence?

[Johonny]

22. I guess he's right in the stupid sense.

You basically claim God did as the answer by default. God as the ultimate just so answer.

The problem with ID as a theory is... well prove god. ID has to have a designer and proving that the designer exists becomes sort of a problem from them. God isn't proven to exist by default in most religions and doesn't reveal himself by default (except in the Gospel of John were all he does is signs to prove who he is, but hey what a surprise the bible isn't consistent). Thus they go about trying to prove ID by "showing" design in inherent biological systems, or more usually proving inherent biological systems could not have evolved. These two things however are generally falsifiable and science generally falsifies them not in IDs favor. Over and over again. Your eye isn't designed in a way a good designer would have made it, there is evidence of evolution of your nervous system etc...

Scientists ignore ID because it's not science and when you apply the scientific method to it, it quickly makes religion go towards the silly or the absurd. Which is why many religious figures are offended by "theories" such as ID. ID it's bad science and worse religion.

[Stevenmarc]

11. Designed, yes ... intelligent, not so much

[FSogol]

12. "God isn't interested in technology.

He cares nothing for the microchip or the silicon revolution. Look how he spends his time, forty-three species of parrots! Nipples for men! Slugs! HE created slugs! They can't hear. They can't speak. They can't operate machinery. Are we not in the hands of a lunatic?"

Terry Gilliam - Time Bandits

[Soylent Brice]

28. i can't top that answer.

i applaud you.

and a special award for use of a terry gilliam reference.

[hunter]

35. Mom! Dad! It's Evil! Don't touch it!

That's where ID takes you... same place as Creationism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v60-qRvmzKA

[gratuitous]

20. Yeah, it's not science

Science concerns itself with the observable, measurable and reproducible. When those two scientists in Utah apparently had a fusion reaction at substantially lower temperatures than would ordinarily be suspected, it caused a big to-do. "Cold" fusion! Could revolutionize power generation, put the oil and coal companies out of business!

But whatever was observed and measured in the lab that day couldn't be reproduced, and the whole thing went away. Same thing holds true for "Intelligent Design." It's really an ad hoc explanation for observed and measured phenomena that doesn't admit to reproducibility. Any anomalies are simply glossed over, without any attempt at reasoned explanation. Scientific inquiry, by contrast, will (or should) come right out and say, "This example doesn't conform to previously observed things; more study is needed," or "This instance is an exception and may be explained because of transient conditions that we haven't previously observed." An example is that, for the most part, soft tissue doesn't fossilize; it decomposes too quickly. But the Burgess Shale was a sudden, catastrophic (for the local flora and fauna) event that overtook a number of organisms and preserved them as fossils far more completely than almost any other fossilization.

[Kazak]

33. Theories are supported by evidence.

ID doesn't make the cut. 'More of an (cockamamie) idea.

[TrogL]

40. They're not the same thing

Evolution is a fully worked up scientific "theory" with conclusions reached from a variety of premises.

Intelligent design is a premise. All attempts to make a "theory" out of it founder in logical fallacies.

[WeDidIt]

44. "Intelligent Design" is a philosophy, not a theory.

I have no problem teaching intelligent design as a philosophy like any other philosophy.

It does not, however, fit the definition of a theory. A theory must begin as an hypothesis which must be tested and retested independently. When enough evidence supporting the hypothesis is gathered from multiple independent tests, the hypothesis can be called a theory.

There is no hypothesis which can be tested in "intelligent design". Ergo, "intelligent design" is nothing more than a pjilosophical rumination.

[ddeclue]

45. Science including evolution can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God

and those who run around trying to use science to disprove the existence of God are just as silly as as those who try to use God to disprove the science of evolution.

Doug D.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. No, just the God of the Bible.

[ddeclue]

49. No you really can't prove or disprove the existence of God using science

You can disprove the literal interpretation of Genesis but then again it's ridiculous to interpret it literally in the first place given that it has been traslated across how many languages? Aramaiec, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Right, but we can prove the Bible's full of shit using science.

[FarCenter]

55. But science certainly can change the nature of religion

A better understanding of geography finds that the earth is a sphere and there is no "above" for heaven or "below" for hell.

A study of astronomy pretty much does in the concept that man is at the center of a universe created by God for man.

A study of geology and biology finds that species are the result of natural processes and not divine creation.

Next will be the explanation of the mind in terms of the chemical and electrical processes of the brain. In which case the idea of life after death becomes implausible. There may be a cosmological god, but it won't much matter anymore.

[Kazak]

58. Not so sure about that...

True, science cannot disprove god, but I think it has shed enough light to demonstrate that life did not necessarily require the input of any supernatural force whatsoever in order to develop all on its own under the right set of circumstances.

[undeterred]

53. Capitalism and the Invisible Hand and the Free Market

are a bunch of fairytale bullshit, but lots of supposedly intelligent people swear by it.

[FarCenter]

56. No, they are just early and inaccurate attempt to model economics

Like the elements being air, water, fire and earth.

Or the phlogiston theory.