Certain societal groups have attempted to place “Intelligent Design” in the context of the sciences.

ID is the concept that nature and complex biological structures were designed by supernatural beings.

Science, the context in which ID may be taught, is the systematic knowledge of the physical or natural world gained through observation and experimentation.

The concept of a an “intelligent designer” does not conform to these requirements. A supernatural being, obviously, is “super” natural, not conforming to the laws of nature.

If the existence of a supernatural creator cannot be explained through the scientific method (the aforementioned observation and experimentation), then its existence logically cannot be identified as science.



Discuss.

ID cannot be science. Anyone who has ever studied statistics or research design can attest that for any hypothesis to be considered scientific in testing and research, it must be reliable (the data obtained must be reproduceable) and must be valid (it must be true under all future tests...i.e.,) if it is true under every interpretation (also called structure or model)

The idea is to put the "anti religion" people at a dilemma; Intelligent design forces them to admit that no matter what you "believe", evolution is hardly a science, christ, I would not even call it a good hypothesis.

THe notion is that the evolution of humanity is so complex that general selection could not accomplish this development ( and I fully agree with that).

Now, lets simplify things; the evolution (anti religion) people would have you thinking that religious people think that there is no science. That's the idea.

The "intelligent design " folks said "lets put together a theory equally as goofy". And what followed was intelligent design.(and it does have merit) They forced their hand and it was called. This was not done because "intelligent design" is a great theory. It was done to "anti the antis" and what the hell, it's a goddamn good concept. True or not, that's not the point. The point is that humanity is such an enigma vs the rest of Mammalia that it must be explained . How that is done is the sticking point.

Unfortunately the whole thing is a political football, and the only reason it happened is because someone said "you mentioned god , i'm insulted". Tit for Tat. There's one law of physics the left will never understand; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. They would have you believe this movement is "a bunch of nuts". I will tell you they are doing this only to counter the " marxist anti religion movement" . You see how this plays out? It has nothing to do with the real world.


Oddly enough, I'm not religious, but I know the truth when I see it, and Evolution in the human sense is a farce. Natural selection is the basis and it only accounts for the species not dying. Last time I checked, deer were deer. So Why did humans advance in this fashion.

What bothers me is the real question; people are too complex to "evolve" based on natural selection. And Christians Jews and Muslims alike are savvy enough to realize that the world was not created in a week. That is established.

So how did we come to this point in existence? Or am I derailing your thread and you were just looking to dig on some Republicans?

They used to talk about this shit in coffee houses; now they only talk about Karl Marx.


THINK.

My point was that ID does not fit within the sciences--teach it in theology class. You can believe in Allah or Spongebob or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But science deals with what definitively exists.

You may say that God must exist because you believe in it. Show me a mathematical formula proving that, and I'll be right behind you at Sunday mass. Until then, I'll stick with facts that have been inferred from actual observations.

This isn't about whether ID is true or not. It's about why it isn't science by any stretch of the imagination. For something to be defined as scientific, it must have evidence backing it up. At best, intelligent design is mere pseudoscience.

Posted by DanB My point was that creationism does not fit within the sciences--teach it in theology class. You can believe in Allah or Spongebob or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But science deals with what definitively exists. You may say that God must exist because you believe in it. Show me a mathematical formula proving that, and I'll be right behind you at Sunday mass. Until then, I'll stick with facts that have been inferred from actual observations.

And my retort just went right over your head.
It's a political football.

There is nothing in evolution which fits a scientific model, strictly speaking.

Same with creationism. So they said "two can play at the non religious game" and up came intelligent design.

But I can tell by your reply where you are coming from. You didn't respond with inelligent design, you said creationism. You mentioned science, which is there, but only vaguely.

As I figured this is the typical "anti religion political hack" thread.

I was hoping someone really wanted to discuss the topic . You and I did not evolve from monkeys. And we did not come from a fucking arK.

But I guess that marxist politics matters more than legitimate discussion.

Posted by DanB My point was that creationism does not fit within the sciences-- You may say that God must exist because you believe in it. Until then, I'll stick with facts that have been inferred from actual observations.

When you said "creationism" you showed your hand of cards.
The argument works both ways. . . .
ID was a very clever construct because it plays the same game evolution does.
I do not know what science you have been studying but evolution theory has some very very very big holes in it.
Some are sufficient to scrap the whole concept.
No one said you have to believe in GOD - just some sort of god who started the ball rolling - this god need not be the white robed old guy or allah on camel back, ID is just acknowledging that the universe is not a self licking ice cream cone.

To begin I would like to define the terms that often seem to cause some confusion. The definitions that I am going to use come from the Oxford English Dictionary, and represent only a few of the possible definitions, but I am ignoring archaic and obscure so that we can discuss this with their contemporary usage.

Science: The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied; also, with wider reference, knowledge (more or less extensive) as a personal attribute. Now only Theol. in the rendering of scholastic terms (see quot. 1728), and occas. Philos. in the sense of ‘knowledge’ as opposed to ‘belief’ or ‘opinion’.

Scientific Method: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

If one is applying scientific method to a problem there is one necessary component that cannot be overlooked, it must be falsifiable. This is one very good reason that Intelligent Design is not “science”, whatever it may be. There have been other very important reasons listed why ID cannot be science, but I think that this one addresses the issue in terms of the meaning of science rather well.

On to evolution, which is a theory, not a “hypothesis”. A hypothesis is a supposition and does not have any conclusive evidence or proof. A theory is more of a scheme of how something will generally work, and is composed of facts. A theory, you could say, structures the facts that you have obtained.

As far as tying in a notion of “anti religion” into it, I think that tends to play the pathos card, which I am unwilling to do. There are a great many religions out there that do not take issue with evolution like Christian varieties often do. Also, to make a sweeping generalization about scientists/lay people who agree with the theory of evolution as “anti religion” is not only playing the emotional card, but just plain wrong. This extends to the notion that all those who have been so charmingly defined without context as “anti religion people” would believe that someone who does have religious beliefs is incapable of understanding or doing science.

The history of the notion of intelligent design has been equally misrepresented. It is fairly common knowledge, which I'm sure you can find in many books at your local library, that Plato had notions of an “intelligent designer”. Plato believed that there was what he called an ideal form of all objects in this world that represented Truth. This is one of, if not the main reason, that he had an idea of art as something negative; it was twice removed from the ideal form. The best example, which I believe was in Plato's Republic, was of a bed. There is, says Plato, an ideal form of a bed (only one copy) that exists -out there- (think of it as existing in God's mind), and then there are what carpenters make. What the carpenters make is removed from the ideal form and so does not represented Truth (capital “T” truth). A poet or painter, then, who replicated the replica is even further removed from Truth. Plato did, after all, love Truth. Since Plato there have been many people who sincerely tried to reason life from an intelligent design perspective.

In terms of placing humanity outside or above other animals, well, that is a matter that is groundless. Rather than saying, “we're different, we build shit”, I believe that it is more important to look at how similar we are. After all, we are far more similar to other animals than we are different. Language is, in my opinion, what has allowed humans to progress as they have and there is some indication that this is a very recent development in our history. The ability to use signs and symbols is significant and has allowed cultural developments. Of course, this is a gross oversimplification, but must suffice, for I do have time constraints and there are many wonderful books out there if you are really interested.

Now what many people forget about evolution is that is was not a theory formed by an “anti religion person”. Charles Darwin was a very religious man and, until he formed his version of the theory, believed in the literal word of the Bible. To say that evolution is a “Marxist anti religion movement”, which is indeed how I read that response, is not only another gross oversimplification, this time of Marxism, but of evolution itself. It demonstrates no knowledge about the history or significance of the development of the Theory of Evolution, not the other scientific findings that first challenged the literal word of the Bible: read Geology.
Evolution, much to the dismay of many, does not simply exist in a “human sense”. Also, that definition of Natural Selection demonstrates a poor understanding of the concept; in fact, you might as well have said, “It's chance”. It's not. Also, comparing two species that would have diverged so long ago is misleading. Why not compare something interesting, like Gorilla's and Humans? If you really want to know why some animals advanced in one way, and others in another, there are many books that will explain it in detail to you. Richard Dawkins has written many wonderfully complete, yet readable to the lay public, texts about this very subject. He also addresses Intelligent Design and its fallacies in “The Blind Watchmaker”.

As far as arguing from irreducible complexity, well, that's been disproved. For a good read you may wish to visit this site: http://www.talkdes...dmyst/ICDmyst.html . The fact is that there are some things that we just don't know yet, but that does not mean that we cannot know them or that we must throw up our hands and proclaim that “God did it” or some such nonsense.

For the times that it has been said in this thread that evolution is not science, well, I would like to know exactly how it is not, rather than a personal opinion. “Strictly speaking”, evolution does follow scientific method as it fits into the definition. Remember: scientific method is defined as, “consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses”. Evolution relies on this definition to have any merit at all, and it does have merit in the scientific community; with scientists. There have been modifications to the theory as well, look it up, that's science.

I'd like to agree with one statement, that sadly demonstrates the significant waste of time my response will be since there is a clear lack of understanding as to what evolution is: “You and I did not evolve from monkeys.”
That's very correct, we did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys are, one might say, equally evolved as we are. However, we are primates, according to scientific classification, and evolution suggests that we evolved from a common ancestor. ^-~

As far as the rhetoric of political discourse in American and the use of terms such as “marxist” go, I'd absolutely love to discuss the ideologies behind that, but I fear we would be far too off topic.

DevilC,

You said that, “evolution theory has some very very very big holes in it”, and I would love for you to point those out. I don't know what kind of science you have been studying, but I've been studying a lot of biochem and genetics. Most of the “gaps” that I've heard people talk about are usually the kind that comes from ignorance of the subject, so if you've got something better please do explain it to me here, I would love to know.

As far as your justification for ID, well, I happen to think that it is intellectually lacking. Duke's said “THINK”, which to me would imply that I should attempt to understand, not band-aid my incomplete knowledge with “creator”. That does, as I'm sure you are aware, raise the question of who created the creator?

The nature of the universe is another interesting concept, but simplifying it to “not a self-licking cone” does not propose anything new or interesting either. I suppose that the idea that because we don't know, we can't know, seems like an easy out. It does not answer any questions, in fact, it only introduces more questions with regards to a “creator”.

I mean, are you talking about a “creator” as some kind of entity that has purpose, that would answer my prays, that will give me immortal life because I'm a little different than the other Great Apes? Or are you making the implication that there is an underlying principal to the universe that governs everything?

So many thoughts, so little time. I do hope that this all makes sense, as I really don't have time to discuss this at any greater length. It anything is unclear/contradictory I would love to address it, I don't have time to carefully proof-read this, and for that I apologize. It was really a random spew of thoughts/concerns/clarification.

Cheers.

I think we came from space aliens.
Remember that Marvel comics storyline the "Watchers"? Good shit!

Being a little extreme of course but that's the point, there is no good answer, because it's a fun topic to explore; even if evolution was spot on, you'd still have to account for the "what created the matter in the big bang". It's enough to make your head spin.

This is the type of shit I like to think about while sitting in a lawn chair looking at stars in the summer.

A little Art Bell , goofy as he is, adds to the atmosphere: good stuff - a grill cooking some steaks and a couple of Cervezas doesn't hurt either.

Posted by 'Dukes even if evolution was spot on, you'd still have to account for the "what created the matter in the big bang". It's enough to make your head spin.

Evolution, like all scientific theories, is open to change with new information. A lot of people who like to claim that there are "gaps" (who obviously have no idea what they are talking about) also like to point out bits of the theory that have changed. However, the ability to change, to admit that you were wrong, is a large part of doing science. Mountains and mountains of data support the current theory, and scientists are always seeking to disprove it. As far as the big bang is concerned, it is far less well understood by the lay public than evolution is. A simple answer to, "where did matter come from", would be: "possibly from an energy dominated universe". To actually -understand- a lot of the ideas that you're talking about you need to be an extremely well-educated mathematician/physicist.

Wow , honey you certainly said a mouthful.
I'm glad I'm a member of the "lay public" with a bit of self effacing humor. And one who can dream and imagine.

Jesus Christ, it's like Lilith Crane is on here.

Someone get me an icepick!

Posted by 'Dukes Wow , honey you certainly said a mouthful. I'm glad I'm a member of the "lay public" with a bit of self effacing humor. And one who can dream and imagine. Jesus Christ, it's like Lilith Crane is on here. Someone get me an icepick!

Sorry, I thought that the question was regarding science, not personal opinion. It's a typical knee-jerk reaction to respond to scientists/scientific rationalist as "cold" or "humorless" people, but one must own up to the facts that they are really just playing off stereotypes. Of course, stereotypes say more about those creating them than those who are the victims of them.

Sadly attacking the character of the person, in this case the perceived character of an individual, is hardly an effective rhetorical act. I'll give you a little more credit for the appeal to pathos: "And one who can dream and imagine". That little quip does rather well to imply that scientists do not employ "imagination" or do not "dream" as the rest of us folks might.

Recently I attended a lecture that Richard Dawkins gave at McGill university in Montreal, and he addressed this very issue of the public's perception of scientists as cold or emotionless. It's very sad that after such greats as Sagan, and even Dawkins himself, that people carry on with this kind of thoughtless stereotyping.

I would argue that this kind of reaction to scientists, which is not new at all, contributes to some of the problems people have understanding evolution. It's the old rainbow losing its poetic nature after it has been explained--bullshit. Understanding makes life more beautiful, and willful ignorance is one of the most repulsive things that I've ever encountered.

The sexism in your use of the term "honey" (I'm a "honey" of yours? A sweetheart? Interesting.) is far too telling of your bigotry. Don't worry, though, I don't expect you to retract your attempts at undermining my character with a sexist comment; only used to make your point-of-view seem more valid. Good try, my precious-sweet-darling-of-joy. ^-^

It's not science? It's design...it's art.

blah blah blah.

Posted by Asher Archive Sorry, I thought that the question was regarding science, not personal opinion. It's a typical knee-jerk reaction to respond to scientists/scientific rationalist as "cold" or "humorless" people, but one must own up to the facts that they are really just playing off stereotypes. Of course, stereotypes say more about those creating them than those who are the victims of them. Sadly attacking the character of the person, in this case the perceived character of an individual, is hardly an effective rhetorical act. I'll give you a little more credit for the appeal to pathos: "And one who can dream and imagine". That little quip does rather well to imply that scientists do not employ "imagination" or do not "dream" as the rest of us folks might. Recently I attended a lecture that Richard Dawkins gave at McGill university in Montreal, and he addressed this very issue of the public's perception of scientists as cold or emotionless. It's very sad that after such greats as Sagan, and even Dawkins himself, that people carry on with this kind of thoughtless stereotyping. I would argue that this kind of reaction to scientists, which is not new at all, contributes to some of the problems people have understanding evolution. It's the old rainbow losing its poetic nature after it has been explained--bullshit. Understanding makes life more beautiful, and willful ignorance is one of the most repulsive things that I've ever encountered. The sexism in your use of the term "honey" (I'm a "honey" of yours? A sweetheart? Interesting.) is far too telling of your bigotry. Don't worry, though, I don't expect you to retract your attempts at undermining my character with a sexist comment; only used to make your point-of-view seem more valid. Good try, my precious-sweet-darling-of-joy. ^-^

Unfortunately one variable that scientists never seem to be able to understand is ...people. Unfortunate.

Posted by 'Dukes Unfortunately one variable that scientists never seem to be able to understand is ...people. Unfortunate.

You've missed the point entirely. Might I add that you did not address anything that is relevant to this thread. Sadly, for you, your attacks on my character failed and with that gone there stands the glaring fact is that you've managed to contribute nothing to this topic.

-not a scientist ^-~

I framed the argument properly; I am not a "intelligent design" advocate and have never been.
I addressed the reasoning, and illustrated the "anti the anti's" Philosophy.

Then, I pointed out that this is something that can really expand the imagination if you take it for what it is; a mystery that math can attempt to , but the human mind cannot comprehend.

I think I have contributed plenty; or wasn't reason the point behind the thread?
Perhaps as I suspected it's intent was to stereotype a group, just like you claim I have done.

Then you miss the humor entirely, referencing a conference you attended regarding the public's perception of scientist as "cold". I was talking about you ! Goofing on you anyway.

In reality, the public doesn't pay much attention to these people, right or wrong.

On a side note, what are scientists doing examining public opinion about anything? Are they implying that popularity would stop them from doing their work?

Posted by katwoman blah blah blah.

And now add, "Because God gave us free will," and you have the same old tired Christian cop out response when they can't answer a scientific question with scripture.

Posted by Father Maurice Lester And now add, "Because God gave us free will," and you have the same old tired Christian cop out response when they can't answer a scientific question with scripture.

I don't believe that the Christians vs the Agnostics is the issue here molester. And I also don't believe I know of any scripture that says "blah blah".
Wizen up.
She was saying "blah blah" (I know that is pedestrian for you intellectuals) which means "your diatribe on either side is crap". That was my point all along, there should be open discussion. It's a fun topic.

Posted by 'Dukes I framed the argument properly; I am not a "intelligent design" advocate and have never been. I addressed the reasoning, and illustrated the "anti the anti's" Philosophy.

But in your supposed representation of ID and the so-called "anti-anti's" notions you ignored reality and all of the evidence/lack of evidence behind it. The issues that you so grossly misrepresented is what I took issue with because all too often people are unable or unwilling to actually understand the facts. This is a concern because it leads to terrible misconduct of officials in the educational system allowing ID to be taught as a science, when it is so clearly not. The poor education of child should be a great concern of the American public, because those are your doctors and scientist of the future, and universities are not putting up with this. Berkeley denied students entrance because they had not taken science classes, they were taught ID in place of science. Imagination is just dandy, but if these children are going to be capable adults working in scientific fields they need to learn to reason. I'm a great fan of literature that has no basis in reality, but I know that it is fictional. Evolution is not a mystery and ID is a poor excuse for incomplete knowledge. The greatest imaginations work to understand and know the world that they exist within and given the great leaps technology has taken we are no longer subjects to our limited perceptions.

What I referenced was not a conference, it was a lecture. The lecture was given by Richard Dawkins, a scientist that a great many do care about. He addressed, among many other issues, how people tend to view scientists as "cold" and what a false image that is. That extends to scientific rationalist, such as myself. The ability to step back from an issue and examine the method does not make someone cold, it is not an implication of someone being cold, it is necessary for reason. As far as the public not paying attention to scientist--maybe in American popular culture. Scientists are not celebrities, but what they do matters and concerns many people. Stem cell research, cloning, GM and so on are all greatly debated topics and behind all of that is the scientist. There is an interesting perception of scientist, in their capacity as experts, and the way that they create their ethos, which would better explain this, but that is another topic in itself.

The reason that scientist address public opinion is because that is the future. Perception of science and scientist is very important in a time when fewer and fewer people are entering into the field in the United States and England. As well, the public has a great say in lawmaking, which can cut funding for scientific research. Sad, but true.

Posted by 'Dukes I don't believe that the Christians vs the Agnostics is the issue here molester.

The entire debate of ID vs Evolution is agnostic vs Christian or if you rather, science vs faith.