A school administrative director in Maine has come under attack and ridicule recently for his recent urging that evolution be dropped from the curriculum in schools.
Matthew Linkletter, director of School Administrative District 59 in Somerset County, claims that no theory – neither evolution nor creationism – should be taught in schools if it cannot be proven.
"You can't show, observe or prove [evolution]," Linkletter said in a statement.
David Connerty-Marin of Maine’s Department of Education, however, countered Linkletter’s stance, claiming that evolution should continue to be taught in schools because it is based on “proven science,” and is part of the state mandated curriculum.
"For our students to be prepared for college work and life in the 21st century, it's necessary. Evolution is not just a belief, or based on faith, it's based on scientific evaluation. The worldwide science community supports it,” he said.
Town Manager Norman Dean of Madison, one of the locations where the instruction of evolution has been challenged, also criticized Linkletter, adding that his opposition to evolution was "absolutely stupid."
Linkletter’s opposition, however, has come at a time when the “Evolution Academic Freedom” legislation – which allows for the public criticism of the tenets of Darwinism in public schools – advances under review in four states.
Lawmakers in Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan are currently considering options to change or modify the instruction of evolution in schools that would allow students to challenge and “think critically” concerning Darwinism.
"The evolution concept is a theory, and not provable. If the science department at Madison High (a school in Somerset County) is simply teaching theory, then you ought to leave it in the science department,” said Roy Blevins, pastor at the Church of the Open Bible in Athens, Maine.
Linkletter’s arguments will be examined for review by school district directors on May 19.
RSS
Despite extensive searching of the Gospels I am unable to find any teaching of Christ's on Darwin's origin of species. Also I found nothing in the gospels where Christ seeks to prove the existence of God. It seems to me that not only is the pursuit of "scientific" evidence for God (ID) a enormous waste of time and inherently doomed to failure (since Science by definition deals with NATURAL phenomena and NATURAL causes and God by definition is supernatural) it is also fully inconsistent with the manner and teachings of Christ. One even wonders seriously if this vanity is what Christ spoke of when he discusses the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit. Is it not the Spirit of god living within us as C.S. Lewis so well describes in "Miracles" which informs us of the truth of Christss revelation. Is not chasing after other "proofs" of god and his covenant a repudiation of this new spirit which is to live within us.
Tgender when you say that ID is falsifiable by showing that any particular object is not contingent,complex or specified what do you mean by these terms. I am sincerely interested. If I take your grammer as stated the term or allows falsification if any of the three conditions exists in relation to "any particular object" if this you mean what you say by this and you use the term complex in the way that ID advocates use it (irreducible complexity) then I would contend that by your proposition of falsification ID is already shown to be false since such objects are numerous in our natural universe. However for my self I can't see how such a proposition for falsification for ID hypothesis could be correct since the advocates when shown something that was not "complex, contingent or specified" could simply posit that that is the way the designer wanted it. You can't have it both ways that the designer can make things any way he wants and then say that there can be in the design something that shows their is no designer. ???
Agentorangx
Hi, While I agree with your line of argument that ID is not science and no falsifiable hypothesis is formable the SETI project has problems as well. The project directors admit that in fact their hypothesis is not falsifiable either. Like ID they look at the universe and based on their understanding of statistical probability can not conceive of a universe that does not have other intelligent life somewhere in it and therefore based on this belief they search for what they can not develop a falsifiable test for. You are correct in that they search in the natural world and therefore have the possibility of demonstrating the truth of their guess about the universe at some point. This however would be the discovery of a fact by virtual explorers not the vindication of a theory through experimentation under the scientific method.
TGender,
As I believed you are unable to provide any support from the SETI project itself that supports your INTERPRETATION of that project. Also you failed to respond to the challenge for you to provide something beyond a bald assertion that ID is science.
The absence of external support for your SETI claim is somewhat moot since even if true it would not follow that ID is science. The problem with your SET claim is that SETI does not use the "Scientific method" in their search. Even the people who run it admit that it would be impossible to falsify their hypothesis even if all human endeavors were turned to searching the radio waves for millions of years. They would contend that this simply meant that the E.T.s didn't use radio waves or that we missed the broadcast. They admit this and rely on a probability equation as the basis of their belief system. It is ok with me if they want to believe this. (In fact the belief in E.T. does not conflict with my spiritual beliefs and I consider it a feasible possibility). However the SETI While using technologies to explore the universe do not do SCIENCE. Scientific hypothesis by definition must be falsifiable or they are not scientific. It is the willingness and ability to posit the opposite of ones hypothesis and consider it to be legitimately possible which is at the heart of the difference between science and faith. You seem fundamentally unable (as do the supposed ID scientists) to consider the possibility of your being wrong in relation to creationism. This is understandable since the propositions you are advocating are faith positions. There is nothing wrong with holding such faith positions in my book. (I do so myself) What I do not do and object to in others is the self delusion that faith positions are science.
By the way your quote regarding Theology being the Queen of Sciences was not a saying of medieval scholars in general as your statement implies. Rather it is a commentary on the attitude of the scholars of that time found in various texts that discuss the period. In fact the statement relates very strongly to Thomas Aquinas. Interestingly it does not mean what you interpret it to mean.
A master principle which informs Aquinas' analysis of creation is that the truths of science cannot contradict the truths of faith. God is the author of all truth and whatever reason discovers to be true about reality ought not to be challenged by an appeal to sacred texts.
While they disagreed on some things this is one area where Aquinas was in agreement with Augustine. In fact both of them agree in this regard with all major Christian theologians. Your argument that science must be interpreted through the lens of Christology is contrary to centuries of Christian theology. What is alarming is that it is consistent with the approach to science/faith that members of the Taliban and other extremists find attractive.
Tgender,
So you’ve heard how the type 3 secretory system explains the evolutionary pathways for the bacteria flagella then? So you’ve read the literature on species showing how the blood clotting cascade system isn’t in fact IC? These are just 2 instances of IC which aren’t IC and its exactly what you asked for to falsify ID as a hypothesis, well, there it is, now what?
“different disciplines?”
Science is science, philosophy is philosophy, they shouldn’t be used in the same manner to explain each facts in each IE, we leave scientific methods to be used in science and we leave philosophical methods like predicate logic in philosophy. Explain these 2 genetic facts using the ID hypothesis in a scientific manner. After tryign to do explain these 2 in a scientific manner you'll see how ID as a hypothesis isn't scientific, but quasi philosophy.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
ao,
Don't bother. I've heard it all before and it's a crock. Don't care to address my comment about integrating knowledge from different disciplines?
tgender,
ok, did you want me to explain the instances of IC Behe refers to and how they were shown in Dover to not be IC, or do you take my word for it?
ao,
Respectfully, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what IDs purpose is, but more importantly, the need to integrate various disciplines of knowledge to form a coherent worldview that we can be confident is true. If God exists, then all your contortions to constrain science and avoid theology are all for naught.
Regards
“I suspect you accept SETI because the SETI scientists do not posit God as the intelligent agent, but some sort of mysterious alien life.”
Right, SETI appeals to the natural world, while ID appeals to the supernatural (ID/God), however the supernatural can’t be held constant and therefore can’t be readily studied by scientific methods.
“! Well, it is science just like SETI is because the principles are the same.”
Not quite. SETI attempts to explain the natural world with natural things and only natural things, while ID attempt to explain the natural world via supernaturalism, thus not science.
“ID is falsifiable by showing that any particular object is not contingent, not complex, or not specified’
So if I list the systems which Behe asserts to be IC and show how they have evolutionary pathways would that about suffice?
“When evolutionists run into trouble, they simply posit more time for evolution to happen or appeal to future discoveries”
Ya, like when? Lord Kelvin first suggest the Earth to be many millions (about 20) of years old based solely on the laws of thermodynamics, but he didn’t know about radiation and so his numbers were off, the earth is much older, closer to 4.5 billion years. Even the Disco Institute clowns know and accept the age of the earth and all life which has lived on it so even there you have explain why the ID folk accept it.
“How do you falsify evolution?”
Find some mammalian fossils in the Devonian layers and its spot on about dead. I can list numerous falsifiable predictions evolutionary theory has passed if you’d like?
This is tedious,, explain these 2 simply genetic facts using the ID hypothesis in a scientific manner.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
ao,
Yes, your view is what I suspected. You want to deny ID as science because you seem to fear who might be at the end of it. In other words, you’ll accept ID in SETI because at most we’ll find aliens and you can deal with that. However, if we apply ID to nature and discover God, you want to reject it and say it’s not science! Well, it is science just like SETI is because the principles are the same. Scientific discoveries of design would then lead one into theology to identify and understand the Designer. So what? If it leads to TRUTH, then that’s what we’re after, right? ID does not tie the hands of science, rather it frees it to pursue the truth wherever it leads. Disciplines of knowledge should not be compartmentalized, but integrated.
ID is falsifiable by showing that any particular object is not contingent, not complex, or not specified. It is evolution is that is not falsifiable. When evolutionists run into trouble, they simply posit more time for evolution to happen or appeal to future discoveries. How do you falsify evolution?
TG,
Here’s the key difference, SETI and their search for signs revolve around not the supernatural like ID, but instead the natural world. SETI doesn’t refer to things in the supernatural realm to explain those in the natural world, its entire avenue of gaining knowledge on ET’s stems from the natural world. As opposed to ID, which appeals to some un-described supernatural agent to explain natural phenomena in the natural world, again this is why it’s not scientific.
SETI is searching for something in the natural world and therefore it can make falsifiable predictions based on it, ID is engaged in searching, but again its searches revolve around detecting supernatural agents. SETI isn’t used to collectively explain many things in the natural world. More of less I am just asking to show how ID as a hypothesis is falsifiable? Take for instance the examples of ERV’s and Human chromosome 2 fusion, how could the ID hypothesis explain such facts in a falsifiable manner?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Viking—
SETI is a scientific research program dedicated to searching for extraterrestrial intelligence (the “I” in SETI). It does this by scanning radio signals looking for contingency, specification, and complexity—which would be signs of intelligent life (or intelligent causation or intelligent design), i.e., it looks for complex patterns that cannot be mistaken for chance events. This is exactly what ID is arguing for, except they say let’s point this ID filter at other things besides radio waves to see if we can discern intelligent causes in nature. If you don’t see this, then you simply are not willing to see it. I suspect you accept SETI because the SETI scientists do not posit God as the intelligent agent, but some sort of mysterious alien life.
I want to clarify something I wrote in my last post. I agreed with agentorange that “science is NOT the only avenue of knowing” and that only real science should be taught in science classes—as opposed to bad science. I fear that you and perhaps others might have misconstrued my meaning. I believe that God is the maker of the heavens and the earth, therefore we will find Him in all things. Since God created the nature that science investigates it will be no surprise to find Him at every turn.
Medieval scholars were right when they said “Theology is the queen of the sciences; and philosophy is her handmaiden.” Theology must therefore transcend, inform, and unify all human disciplines. Since God is the ultimate Reality, all truth is God’s truth. So, if Christianity is true, then any view of science that leaves Christ out of the picture is fundamentally deficient. Christ is the lens through which it is possible to understand all of human existence. Therefore, we should expect Christology to enter substantially into all of life’s various disciplines. The naturalistic views of science I have seen on this website do not seek to integrate it into a coherent worldview, but rather want to isolate it from other forms of knowledge. This is detrimental and ultimately dangerous in my opinion.
Hi Tgender, based on your last post you would agree that if ID is not science then it should not be taught in schools. you give as support for the proposition that ID is science is that its principles are used in the SETI program. I went to the SETI web site and could not find this. Could you provide the link that demonstrates this claim with an official quote from the SETI scientists that says their project is based on ID principles.
In contrast to this proposition I would refer you to the exhaustive examination of whether ID is science in the Dover PA decision where it was found that ID as it was presented by its advocates was in fact not science on multiple grounds.
Given lack of any evidence to support the opinion that ID is science I would expect you be consistent with your own statement and withdraw your position that ID should be taught in schools.
ao,
“I am suggesting not that science is the only avenue of knowing, rather I am saying that what aught to be taught in science classes must remain as science and not quasi philosophy or other realms of knowing.”
Believe it or not I agree with you. Our difference of opinion is that I say ID is legitimate science and you do not. SETI is an established scientific program and it uses the principles of ID. Do you object to that program being called science?
“The fact that you want to limit your knowledge to science reveals your bias”
Respectfully no, I am suggesting not that science is the only avenue of knowing, rather I am saying that what aught to be taught in science classes must remain as science and not quasi philosophy or other realms of knowing.
“I gave you a perfectly good example of how a scientific conclusion points to God and you reject it.”
Then you need to re-read it, b/c that’s not what I was asking. I asked, again for the 3rd time, show me a science question or even a math or science equation in which it couldn’t be solved or we couldn’t understand it until a person injected the hypothesis of ‘god did this part and that part’ in the equation. Namely, demonstrate in thermodynamics or another realm of science in which the hypothesis ‘god made it that way’ actually resulted in real tangible knowledge. Christ rising from the dead still needs an explanation on HOW it occurred if it occurred at all. Again, saying ‘he rose from the dead’ doesn’t explain the details in the matter, it simply asserts he did and without any detailed explanation on how and without such details it’s not possible to rebut or critique the idea.
Lets put it on the table. Show me how ID as a hypothesis is actually scientific and should be taught as such in schools. That is what this all boils down to, appealing to the supernatural as ID does to explain natural phenomena doesn’t end up explaining any of the details, it simply asserts certain complex patterns require design but doesn’t explain the designer nor the design process, thus making it not really possible to falsify the claims, consequently making it not science but more akin to philosophy.
Agentorange—
“Has a supernatural explanation ever been shown to result in new actual tangible knowledge in SCIENCE?”
The fact that you want to limit your knowledge to science reveals your bias. I gave you a perfectly good example of how a scientific conclusion points to God and you reject it.
To summarize: Science informs us what it means to be dead. Furthermore, that all men die and stay dead is a repeatable and verifiable fact of science and is our uniform experience throughout human history. However, one man did not stay dead, but was raised to life after being dead for 3 days. Science can CONFIRM such an event, but it cannot EXPLAIN it because it is supernatural.
The resurrection of Christ is a verifiable historical event that is the most important thing that has ever occurred since the creation of the world. It is knowledge of the utmost significance and relevance to our lives, yet you are totally uninterested because you think it’s not “scientific”. You ignore this knowledge at your own peril.
TG,
“You haven’t heard anything I’ve said.”
Respectfully, I don’t think you’ve even bothered to research the ‘Wedge Document’, if you had you’d see the ID folks agenda as clear as day and how they seek to undermine science by injecting the supernatural into it. Again, injecting the supernatural into science kills the scientifc method as gods can be contolled making testing a hypothesis utterly pointless, this IS why it's not scientific and the fact that they don't allow one to know who/what the nature of the desinger is and consequently remove it from being critiqued at all, again making it not science. You're a smart person TG, surely you can recognize non-science propositions right?
‘Jesus Christ was raised from the dead 2000 years ago to rescue sinners from eternal condemnation.”
Over your head I guess. Has a supernatural explanation ever been shown to result in new actual tangible knowledge in SCIENCE? For instance, in a given equation has ‘god did this, that, and that over that’ has ever been used and actually resulted in real tangible, verifiable knowledge in Science? Show me the instance where a scientist was looking to explain particle physics or atomic matter or something else (evolution too) and they use ‘god did this and that’ and by using such a hypothesis resulted in actual knowledge. ID makes the claim that certain things are outside of the processes of naturalism and appeals to the supernatural to explain them, all the while not explaining the supernatural agent which is used to explain the natural.
One thing that is interesting is just how small the God of ID is, Newton and the great scientists of the past had great visions of God who controlled the paths of the planets (fill in your own superlative) etc...What ever one thought of their ivew on that particular topic at least they had stlye and a big view of God.
Whattdo we get with the God of ID, we get the bacteria flagella, you can just feel the awe . Now it might be just me but this does seem rather a come down? This is where the God of the gaps is today getting pushed further and further out of the universe, getting smaller and smaller.
As an aside, the many Christians who are quite happy with evolution don't have this problem.
Regards
Steve
Agentorange—
“You mean ID seeks to undermine how we do science and inject the supernatural into it”
You haven’t heard anything I’ve said.
“What you might find as express design can by others and their research and evidence be shown not be expressly designed by some invisible being, but instead the byproduct of bottom up tinkering or the result of natural forces and laws which dictate how matter can and does work.”
You haven’t heard anything I’ve said.
“Show me a single instance ever in which ‘god made it that way’ has ever produced actual knowledge which has increased the prosperity of humanity.”
Jesus Christ was raised from the dead 2000 years ago to rescue sinners from eternal condemnation.
“On the one hand, naturalists scream that ID is not scientific and on the other hand they shout ID must bring God into it or they’re being inconsistent.
No, science doesn’t allow for the supernatural to be used to explain things, so they indeed reject the idea on face value as bringing in supernatural agents kills the scientific method, surely you understand this. Show us all how ID as a hypothesis is falsifiable. Take for instance the examples of evidence on ERV’s and human chromosome 2 fusion. How could the ID hypothesis be used to explain such But the ID crowd can’t too openly say ID = god as doing so would kill their whole motive of injecting neo-creationism back into the public schools. B/c there was a written history thanks to Pandas and People it was clear in Dover who *wink wink* the designer is.
“ID does not “equal” God.”
Oh ok, then ‘who or what is the designer then? If it’s not god, then why does Dembski, Behe and others openly admit to ID =god and not aliens? By not defining the designer, they remove it from being critiqued and consequently make the hypothesis unfalsifiable and therefore not science.
“ID doesn’t deny that there is order in the universe that could be explained by natural causes.”
Right the ID crowd doesn’t deny some natural forces can produce design, but when they can’t find a natural answer immediately, they revert to the primal instinct of injecting supernatural agents to explain things, how illogical. That is essentially saying ‘ I can’t figure it out, god dun it’. My, my, this is the very same logic that left Europe in the dark ages for a millennia.
“That also has implications of God, but these implications can and should be pursued independently of the scientific investigation”
Right it should be explored by all avenues possible, however as you just noted, these ‘other’ methods wouldn’t be scientific, implying they are philosophical or ‘other’ and if it’s philosophy or ‘other’ one certainly can’t teach it as science now can they? But, that doesn’t’ stop the ID folk from trying to teach it as such.
”The goal of ID is to expose the bad philosophical presuppositions of science as it’s practiced today and replace it with a more open-minded approach that doesn’t rule out whole avenues of investigation.”
You mean ID seeks to undermine how we do science and inject the supernatural into it, again refer to the 'wedige document'. If you know anything about science and the scientific method it doesn’t allow for use of the supernatural as a means to explain phenomena as doing so makes testing impossible and proving a given hypothesis utterly pointless. Go ahead, show me a single instance ever in which ‘god made it that way’ has ever produced actual knowledge which has increased the prosperity of humanity. Show me an equation in which ‘god did this, that, and that over there’ and actually explained something with actual evidence backing and is verifiable and again resulted in actual tangible knowledge for humanity.
“If we see design in nature, then let’s acknowledge it.”
Fine, acknowledge ‘design’, but even the notion of ‘design’ and whether its intelligent or not is highly subjective and largely dependant upon evidence to derive its quantitative value. What you might find as express design can by others and their research and evidence be shown not be expressly designed by some invisible being, but instead the byproduct of bottom up tinkering or the result of natural forces and laws which dictate how matter can and does work. Hurricanes, snowflakes and rainbows can be ignorantly seen as ‘designed’. After all, how does the snow ‘know’ how to form such a complex design? How does the hurricane ‘know’ how to form in the manner it does? How does the rainbow ‘know’ how to form a perfect semi-circle with color patterns? In truth, they don’t, they are the result of natural forces, just like all other things, but alas ask an ignorant person and they will no doubt infer some supernatural explanation.
Case in point, Behe asserts the bacteria flagella is such an IC system which evolution couldn’t possibly explain. However this assertion is built on Behe’s ignorance and demonstrated how Ken Miller utterly rips Behe’s arguments on IC systems. Behe asserts such IC systems and their individual parts can’t have secondary functionality, alas he argues such a complete system is only possible when made all at once as such individual parts would have no meaning and therefore evolution couldn’t use them to select.
What is found is from the 50 some parts from the flagella, all but 10 can be removed and we’re left with the type 3 secretory system, which is functional and found in other bacteria as they use it to inject into their hosts. Right there the flagella is shown to not be IC. Nor is the blood clotting cascade system and others, all is required it the research and it becomes evident the idea of IC is simply arguing over gaps of ignorance and personal incredulity.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/6/3027
Flagged myself.
(thanks tg for your thoughts on Hume, I see the t stands for Tom, I did wonder if it was trans,
:-p
Steve)
P.s I don't think the our univerese is eternal but I don't see that implies a creator because we have no idea of conditions prior to Planck time.
AO,
“The reason why the ID crowd doesn't openly express that the designer is god is the sheer fact of doing so would negate it from be taught in public schools.”
The goal of ID is to expose the bad philosophical presuppositions of science as it’s practiced today and replace it with a more open-minded approach that doesn’t rule out whole avenues of investigation. If we see design in nature, then let’s acknowledge it. If we don’t then so be it. But, on what grounds should we ignore an approach that might lead to knowing more truth about nature?
“The ID crowd has put itself into a paradox. It can't openly proclaim ID = god and consequently by defining the designer they remove it from critque and in doing so make it a unfalsifiable hypothesis and therefore make it instrinsicly worthless as it's not scientific.”
This is such an amusing viewpoint to me. On the one hand, naturalists scream that ID is not scientific and on the other hand they shout ID must bring God into it or they’re being inconsistent. ID does not “equal” God. ID looks for evidence of intelligent causation in the natural world, period. If they find it, then certainly there are implications of God and they can be pursued as a separate activity. This is no different than the currently accepted theory of the origin of the universe. At some point in the ancient past the universe did not exist and then it did. That also has implications of God, but these implications can and should be pursued independently of the scientific investigation, since science is not equipped to answer such questions.
Your view seems to imply that one cannot distinguish design from purpose. I would ask why not? One can detect that something was designed, but not necessarily know how or why it came into being. The two issues can be investigated separately.
Steve,
Oh no! I need a daily dose of Hume now? I’ve read some Hume and I’m not sure I could take him daily.
“For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design.”
I think Hume is mistaken here. ID doesn’t deny that there is order in the universe that could be explained by natural causes. That’s why ID employs a 3-step explanatory filter: 1) Contingency (it could have been otherwise), 2) Specification (exhibits a pattern), and 3) Complexity (not too simple). An object must meet all three in order to conclude design; otherwise design cannot be definitively concluded. The snowflake and crystal examples exhibit patterns, but not sufficient complexity to be called design.
“In order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes.”
I don’t see how this follows. If this is true, then it would seem we couldn’t investigate our present universe at all since we don’t have any prior experience investigating universes. Human knowledge has always advanced by applying known principles to the unknown. ID is no different.
“Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism.”
I agree. ID proponents are concerned with the scientific aspect of detecting design in nature. The theological implications are a separate issue. For example, if there truly is a Grand Designer, then we have other legitimate questions to pursue, such as who the designer is, where did he come from, what are his purposes. BTW, your “who designed the designer” question leads to an infinite regression of causes, which is impossible. Logical demands that there must be a first cause of all things that begin to exist. Either the universe is eternal or its creator is. Science has already proven that the universe is not eternal, has it not?
Tom (a sinner saved by grace)
Up early to study, I just love planetary science its soooooooooo interesting, I wish I'd known that learning could be so much fun when I went to school, however I believe that it is said that education is wasted on the young
BW
Steve
steveh20,
6 am and you're back on the horse....you're hardcore.
"ID makes no claims at all about who the Intelligent Designer is"
TG, I think I and Steve have already addressed this, but I give it a go again. The reason why teh ID crowd doesn't openly express that the designer is god is the sheer fact of doing so would negate it from be taught in public schools which is ultimately part of their driving motivation and to know their motivation one need only to become familar with the 'wedge document'. The ID crowd has put itself into a paradox. It can't openly proclaim ID = god and consequently by defining the designer they remove it from critque and in doing so make it a unfalsifiable hypothesis and therefore make it instrinsicly worthless as it's not scientific.
TJ, since you gush over the idea of 'design' and are at odds with not being specially or specifically created, or made in purpose for this universe, what purpose or design is there for things like black holes, quasars and gamma ray bursts? This isnt good design at all, well, at least not good in consideration for our outcome anyway, such things are hostile to life. No ominibeleveolent being would even bother with such things to begin it. Does this negate god? absolutely not, but it narrows it down, that much is true.
Hello tg
Here is your daily dose of David Hume, I suggest taking daily, until symptoms alleviate :-P
For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose".
Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied.
Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? (I guess that answer to this will be the old fall back God does not exist in time etc...)
If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world? (Really like that point!!)
Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure some outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature. (This anticipates natural selection by over a 100 years)
Kind regards
Steve, a fool (no disrespect taken)
Viking—
It is because we know that the skyscraper is designed by human beings that the analogy is useful. My purpose in comparing ID to an indisputable example of real design is to get people to think about how they know that the skyscraper has been designed. It is because it exhibits certain patterns and complexity that we know could not have been created by chance. Of course I agree with you that the analogy can only go so far because ID is not looking for evidence of human intelligent action, but rather some sort of intelligent design that transcends humanity. Thus, your point is taken, but I hope you see what I was aiming for. BTW, the SETI project is using ID principles to detect signs of extra-terrestrial “intelligent” life.
I disagree heartily with some of your other assertions however. I do not think the complexity of life is “well explained by evolution”. In fact, it’s not explained at all in my opinion (of course that’s a whole other discussion, so I guess we can just respectfully disagree). I also disagree that one can hold to belief in evolution and the Bible. I can give you several reasons why I think this if you’re interested. One big one is this: If man evolved from a single cell in a warm little pond, I think it seriously diminishes this idea that we were specially made in God’s image.
I see that you seem to reconcile evolution and the Bible by accepting the idea that the OT cannot be interpreted literally (the early chapters of Genesis I presume, although you didn’t specify). I think this is a mistake as there are ways to reconcile the best science with the creation account.
So, for the record, I reject evolution on two counts: 1) For purely scientific reasons because I think the evidence is wholly inadequate to explain the diversity and complexity of life and 2) For Biblical reasons because it's at odds with many aspects of the creation account specifically as well as the general tenor of the Bible (OT and NT alike).
Regards
Hi Tgender, thanks for the feedback
I do have to point out a flaw in the analogy you give regarding a skyscraper. This same flaw applies to the watch/watchmaker analogies etc. of ID. When we look at a skyscraper we do not assume it was created by random actions because we KNOW from direct experience that skyscrapers are made by human beings. this comes under Ocam's razor. or when you here hoofbeats in kentucky think horses not zebras. The only valid analogy would be if we discovered some complex cosmological phenomena such as the rings of saturn would we conclude that they were constructed by some lost extraterestial race. No we would not. The fact is that there is no need to go looking for ancient astrounauts because the phenomena is explainable by known natural causes. The same is true for life forms on earth. We need not look for a direct designer of individual species since the complexity is well explained by evolution. This begs the question however of where the process of evolution came from. My position fully consistent with science is that the fundamental order of the universe and the rules it operates by were designed or set in motion prior to (not really prior since time becomes meaningless at that point) the event that marks the start of the natural universe. This view of a designed universe allows me to hold without conflict both a faith and a scientific point of view. What it does not let me do is take the OT literally. Examining the current issue of debate in this light shows that underneath proponents of Creationism and the current concept of ID reject evolution not because it conflicts with faith in a divine being (which it doesn't) but because it disagrees with their interpretation of Christianity. The sad thing is that interpretation is inconsistent with the holy writings they purport to uphold (for example Galatians 4:24)
best regards
tg
Thanks for the book recommendation but I am doing planetary science at university at the moment so my reading list on the subject is very full at the moment. I appreciate the thought though.
Regards
Steve
p.s I would take Dawkins at his word that he meant just that. Forget Dawkins though, go back 250 years and read some David Hume, he really sorted me out on this subject of apparent design.
Steve,
“When I look out at the universe I don't see design, what I see is a series of events which I can understand, there is no sense of design in them.”
May I suggest a book for you to read called The Privileged Planet by Gonzalez and Richards? They provide lots of evidence for the design of the universe. Looking a little closer to home, do you not see evidence of design in the human body or other life forms? What did Dawkins mean then when he said, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”?
“I am not saying the universe looks designed, am I silly?”
I said it was silly to say something looks designed and then act like it’s not. However, and no disrespect intended, the fool says there is no God.
tg
When I look out at the universe I don't see design, what I see is a series of events which I can understand, there is no sense of design in them.
I am not saying the universe looks designed, am I silly?
Regards
Steve
Steve,
It’s silly to say things look designed and then act as if they are not, to the point of inventing all kinds of implausible theories about how the designed thing came to be by natural causes. If something looks designed, then why can’t the designer be sought? This is all that ID is saying.
Why is it silly to say things look designed?
Viking—
I agree that science is limited to investigating the physical world. My point was that there is no reason to assume that only natural explanations would be forthcoming if God exists. In other words, if God created the universe, then we would be very likely to find evidence of design in the universe. The principle is the same if we look at a skyscraper; we don’t conclude that it was created by natural processes, but rather that it is the product of design and therefore someone designed it.
I’m not saying that science should stop looking for natural causes, but that it should not be afraid to conclude that God is at the end of it. For example, if the complexity of biological organisms seems to imply they were designed, then who designed them? Instead we get scientists like Dawkins who say silly things like “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” So instead of following the evidence wherever it leads, we get ridiculous theories of how life arose from non-life and evolved into life forms that are millions of times more complicated than computers and spaceships designed by intelligent human beings.
BTW, I think you’re on to something when you ask where does rationality come from. It really makes no sense that it came through blind and random processes of nature. If it did, there is no way we could rely on it. Rather, it must have come from the ultimate rational mind--God Himself.
let's try this again...in English...got to love this little type box......
Vaho, a computer simply does what it's operator tells it to do. Although you can say the computer only does math comp in 1s and 0s (and this would be true) it would not be true that the computer does not do what it was designed to do (within the limitations of our flawed ability to design computers). There are a variety of functions to explore.
Still, most users are at the stage where they turn it on and stuble through simple software. There are others who understand how the computer thinks and study why it does what it does. Both, on one level or another, discover what the designer and programmer has done.
The same is true of science. God is not bound by the limitations of the creation any more than the computer designer and programmer are limited by their creation. God, being the creator, made all kinds of wonderful things for us to discover and study. I am yet to find a subject that does not reflect on him in some way.
Just for the sake of arguement...and "intelligent designer" of all of this would have to be far, far above the likes of us!
So it is the acceptance of science itself as valid which demands the acceptance of reason and since it is a basic assumption of science that while ordered the universe is unreasoning, then the natural universe can not be said to be the origin of reason. Given this reason must originate in some way other than the natural universe in order for science to be valid. Now while we don’t know where/what/when (approximations since this origin must be external to the space time continuum of this universe) this SUPERNATURE is by definition beyond nature. Therefore reason (the foundation of science) can be understood as an invasion of supernature into nature or in Christian terms each reasoning act is in fact a miracle. It is an irony that some of those most dedicated to science reject the foundation for their belief and that those dedicated to faith reject the fruit of their belief.
Tgender, Actually Vaho is correct about science and honest about the limits of science. some of the fundamental assumptions of science are (these are written loosely for the purpose of the discussion)
1. Materialism: There really is something there an external reality not jus a dream or illusion
2. Order: that this reality or universe operates according to a set of rules or laws within the natural universe.
3. Rationality: that human beings through observation and the use of analytical tools come to ever increasing understanding of that universe and the rules or laws that dictate its operation and phenomena.
Interestingly though none of the assumptions of science (i.e. a real universe, that is ordered and the through the scientific method we can come to understand etc.) conflict with the existence of God or supernature. This is why we say that Science in itself does not deny the existence of the supernatural including God but science admits frankly that it can not understand,find, or explain such things. It can only (though it does so exceptionally well) deal with the natural universe.
However it should be noted that the assumptions themselves can be seen to implicate the existence of supernature.
For example the assumption that humans can come to know and understand the universe. In order to accept this assumption there is an underlying assumption that human beings are rational. That is that our thinking and understanding is more than simply a manifestation of the rules of the universe. This is so because if all human thought (including the assumptions of science) were simply a product of the interactions of the physical laws of the universe then there would be no particular reason to believe that any of them are valid. They would simply be artifacts or manifestations of the workings of the universe at the time with one thought no more valid than another. So in order for any scientist to say that he knows anything or that there is any determinable reality he must accept rationality. But if so where does this rationality come from. Some have argued that rationality arose as a selected trait through evolution. But if so and evolution favors only what is best fitted in a given environment to perpetuate the species (Which I believe to be true based on my rational examination of available evidence) then by this reasoning we can have no security in our reasoning. It may simply be that what we think of as rationality is not valid thinking at all but just the best fit at this moment for the current species survival. So Science demands rationality in order for science to be valid but can not explain rationality or account for it by natural means.
Vaho—
“Then intelligent design is not the realm of science.”
So I say ID makes no claims about who God is and you say because of that it’s not science. What sense does that make?
Me: "If God really does exist then it’s likely science will reveal evidence of His work."
You: “No, that's not correct. Science exists to find natural causes for natural events.”
Well that’s a pretty close-minded definition of science, wouldn’t you say? It’s no surprise that you won’t find God if you define the rules in such a way that you can’t find God. Science doesn’t exist to “find natural causes for natural events.” Science exists to investigate the natural world in order to understand it. If the evidence leads to God, then so be it.
"If God really does exist then it’s likely science will reveal evidence of His work."
No, that's not correct. Science exists to find natural causes for natural events. Science does not make guesses about supernatural ideas. Also, there could never be any evidence for anything supernatural. Your "If God really does exist then it’s likely science will reveal evidence of His work" is wishful thinking. It will never happen. Have faith in God if you want to, but don't expect science to support your faith. Science has absolutely nothing to do with any religious idea. That's why it's extremely dishonest to claim intelligent design creationism is scientific.
The Discovery Institute does not like to talk about who the designer is, because they are trying to disguise intelligent design to look scientific. They are not fooling anyone. Everyone knows intelligent design is a religious idea that has absolutely nothing to do with science. That's fine, but why be dishonest about it? Why not just admit intelligent design is religious and not scientific? Isn't there some Commandment that forbids lying?
"Because that’s not the realm of science."
Then intelligent design is not the realm of science.
Vaho—
"ID makes no claims at all about who the Intelligent Designer is." “Why not?”
Because that’s not the realm of science. If God really does exist then it’s likely science will reveal evidence of His work. This is where ID focuses. To understand who this God is and what His purposes are, one looks to theology (the study of God).
"ID makes no claims at all about who the Intelligent Designer is."
Why not?
tg
I never wrote you said the eye was perfect, what I wrote was that some had used the, Darwin could not have believe that natural selection could not produce such an item, argument, please be assured I would never put words into your mouth(not delibrately), if you feel I have then please accept my apologies.
In the UK, "underwear" is also called "boxers" or "kegs",LOL
Regards
Steve
Steve,
For the record, I never claimed the eye was perfect. I merely said that human beings are not in a position to make claims that it is somehow poorly designed.
I think you err when you refer to “the God of the ID movement.” ID makes no claims at all about who the Intelligent Designer is. For that you need to get into theology.
Regards
P.S. We call it “underwear” here.
Steve, in the states we call them 'underwear' for obvious reasons.
Can I just add that in the UK pants are not trousers but what you wear under them, what do you call them in the states? (a bit off line I know but hey its 10.00 Friday night here.....)