Intelligent design isn't science

[Peter]

Perhaps man's methods cannot detect God's presence?

Anyways, for now I feel that concepts like ID should be left to philosophical examination and out of science courses. But it obviously would be exceedingly difficult to have much of a discussion about faith in a public school without much controversy.

[Phenomanul]

Originally Posted by article


Of course, many will still dismiss intelligent design as nothing but warmed over creationism or as a "religious masquerading as science." But intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.

Even so, the theory of intelligent design may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. To say otherwise confuses the evidence for a theory and its possible implications. Many scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to challenge the idea of an eternally self-existent universe and pointed to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But scientists eventually accepted the theory despite such apparently unpleasant implications because the evidence strongly supported it. Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design. Nevertheless, it too must be evaluated on the basis of the evidence not our philosophical preferences or concerns about its possible religious implications. Antony Flew, the long-time atheistic philosopher who has come to accept the case for design, insists correctly that we must "follow the evidence wherever it leads."

This is exactly the sort of concept that must be taught... why would the above phrasing be wrong in any biology textbook???

[Oh, Gee!!]

This is exactly the sort of concept that must be taught... why would the above phrasing be wrong in any biology textbook???

because it is a meta-physical concept

[Phenomanul]

because it is a meta-physical concept

Right on cue...

"Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design."

[Oh, Gee!!]

Right on cue...

"Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design."

the debate isn't a scientific debate, it's a philosophical one.

[Yonivore]

Perhaps man's methods cannot detect God's presence?

Anyways, for now I feel that concepts like ID should be left to philosophical examination and out of science courses. But it obviously would be exceedingly difficult to have much of a discussion about faith in a public school without much controversy.

But, that argument extends to Darwinism as well. Just as many theists use Intelligent Design theory to point to a Creator; atheists point to Darwinism as proof positive there is no God.

So, if you're going to argue that Intelligent Design theory shouldn't be taught in school because of the theological/philosophical implications or the risk that theists will exploit that to introduce religion in violation of the establishment clause; then, similarly, you could argue that Darwin's theory of evolution is being exploited in much the same theological/philosophical manner by atheists.

For example; in an essay, “Is Science a Religion?”, Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins is frank enough. Perhaps the leading figure on the Darwin side, he forthrightly states that...

“...faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.”

He equates God with an “imaginary friend” and baptism with child abuse. In his book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, Dawkins observed that Darwin...

“...made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

There is Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, of the University of Texas, who defended Darwinism before the Texas State Board of Education in 2003. In accepting an award from the Freedom From Religion Foundation,Weinberg didn't hide his own feelings about how science must deliver the fatal blow to religious faith:

“I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from supers ion.”

When Weinberg's idea of science triumphs, then...

“...this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, [and] we'll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”

There is University of Minnesota biologist P. Z. Myers, a prominent combatant in the Darwin wars being fought in an archipelago of websites. He links his own site (recently plugged in the prestigious journal Nature) to a “humorous” web film depicting Jesus' flagellation and crucifixion, a speeded-up version of Mel Gibson's Passion, to the accompaniment of the Benny Hill theme music “Yakety Sax,” complete with cartoonish sound effects.

“Never let it be said that I lack a sense of reverence or an appreciation of Christian mythology.”

In another blog posting, Myers daydreamed about having a time machine that would allow him to go back and eliminate the Biblical patriarch Abraham. Some might argue for using the machine to assassinate other notorious figures of history, but not Myers: “I wouldn't do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler.”

Then there is the Darwinist chairman of the religious studies department at the University of Kansas, Paul Mirecki. He emerged from obscurity recently when his startlingly crude anti-Christian writings came to light. Mirecki's bright idea had been to teach a course about “mythologies,” including intelligent design. Things got interesting when it came out that he followed up his announcement by crowing in an e-mail to a list-serve: “The fundies [Christian fundamentalists] want [ID] taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category 'mythology.'“

My favorite is Tufts University's Daniel C. Dennett. In his highly regarded Darwin's Dangerous Idea, he tells why it might be necessary to confine conservative Christians in zoos. It's because Bible-believing Baptists, in particular, may tolerate “the deliberate misinforming of children about the natural world.” In other words, they may doubt Darwin. This cannot stand! “Safety demands that religion be put in cages,” explains Dennett, “when absolutely necessary....The message is clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strains of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fight for.”

In fact, both Darwin and design have metaphysical implications and are expressions of a certain kind of faith. Intelligent Design theorists are not willing to submit to the assumption that material stuff is the only reality. [modern] Darwinism takes the opposite view, materialism, which assumes there can never be a supernatural reality.

In this it only follows Charles Darwin, who wrote the Origin of Species as an exercise in seeking to explain how life could have got to be the way it is without recourse to divine creative activity. In a pious mode intended to disarm critics, he concluded his book by writing of “laws impressed on matter by the Creator.” However readers immediately saw the barely concealed point of the work: to demonstrate there was no need for “laws impressed on matter” by a Creator.

In short, there is no coherent reconciliation between God and Darwin. Attempts to show how we can have both faith in a spiritual reality (religion) and faith in pure materialism (Darwin) always end up vacuuming the essential meaning out of either God or Darwin.

And this, I think, is why some Darwin advocates dislike religion. It's why they fight it with such passion: Because negating religion is the reason behind their belief system. To their credit, they recognize a truth that others prefer not to see. That is: One may choose Darwin or one may choose God.

[Phenomanul]

the debate isn't a scientific debate, it's a philosophical one.

Semantics cop out... the inclusion of math and probability into the realm of genetic code and genetic eventuality is a scientific pursuit....

Fact of the matter is that our genes contain information far greater than any natural process can create....

Do we ignore this...

NO we need to continue research in search of such mechanisms...

My personal hunch is that they won't be found... but the search much continue... looks like a scientific problem to me Mr. T.

[Yonivore]

the debate isn't a scientific debate, it's a philosophical one.

Really? Neither Darwin or Plato explain the existence of DNA sequencing or of the nanotechnology contained in biological cell structure.

And, if evolution nor philosophy can explain it, maybe science can. But, first, you have to allow the hypothesis to be explored. And, barring it from education is, in effect, stifling that exploration.

The Intelligent Design theory is based on the scientific principles that information is the result of intelligence and that irreducably complex machines can only result from information born of intelligence.

What's wrong with teaching and exploring that theory in schools?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Really? Neither Darwin or Plato explain the existence of DNA sequencing or of the nanotechnology contained in biological cell structure.

And, if evolution nor philosophy can explain it, maybe science can. But, first, you have to allow the hypothesis to be explored. And, barring it from education is, in effect, stifling that exploration.

The Intelligent Design theory is based on the scientific principles that information is the result of intelligence and that irreducably complex machines can only result from information born of intelligence.

What's wrong with teaching and exploring that theory in schools?

because it cannot be proven or disproven using the accepted principles of scientific inquiry. It's a philosophical/theological question.

[Phenomanul]

Good insight Yonivore... I've been trying to show this implied hidden 'agenda' when others claim that all ID proponents are only out for their own religious agenda... But found not the time to show several 'proof beyond doubt' exampes...

[Oh, Gee!!]

Semantics cop out... the inclusion of math and probability into the realm of genetic code and genetic eventuality is a scientific pursuit....

Fact of the matter is that our genes contain information far greater than any natural process can create....

Do we ignore this...

NO we need to continue research in search of such mechanisms...

My personal hunch is that they won't be found... but the search much continue... looks like a scientific problem to me Mr. T.

ID isn't a search for truth. It purports to be the Truth but it cannot be verified through physical tests, experimentation, or peer review as we know it. "Love conquers all" may be true as well, but I doubt that it can be proven scientifically.

[Phenomanul]

because it cannot be proven or disproven using the accepted principles of scientific inquiry. It's a philosophical/theological question.

Oh... so now you are choosing to constrain what scientific methods are valid.... The more we learn about our world the better the methods to explore it arise... Science my friend is always changing despite the 'inside-the-box' beliefs of many to think it is a "Standard"...

[xrayzebra]

^^ well see everyone is still beating this thread over the head. No pun intended.
Good Morning everyone. Beautiful day out. Must evolved from somewhere.
Ah, yes. Over the horizon.....Just jesting.

[Phenomanul]

ID isn't a search for truth. It purports to be the Truth but it cannot be verified through physical tests, experimentation, or peer review as we know it. "Love conquers all" may be true as well, but I doubt that it can be proven scientifically.

Please....!!! those examples are not analogous at all....

How do you measure love... certainly not in any measureable units... but there are ways... ever heard of the logistical signals... >,<, =

Me dying for a friend would show my love for that person more than me poisoning that person... Extreme example, I know but there is a point.

NOW... that is completely different from saying one can't measure the genetic complexity of a gene...

One, it is measureable... Two, the pursuit to understand how it arose is scientific....

[Oh, Gee!!]

Oh... so now you are choosing to constrain what scientific methods are valid.... The more we learn about our world the better the methods to explore it arise... Science my friend is always changing despite the 'inside-the-box' beliefs of many to think it is a "Standard"...

I'm not choosing to limit scientific methods, the scientific community is doing that. But if science expands too far, it no longer remains science.

[Phenomanul]

I'm not choosing to limit scientific methods, the scientific community is doing that. But if science expands too far, it no longer remains science.

There is a flaw to the above argument...

Is that what Galileo would have said of the Hubble telescope?

You must use the newest technologies available to pursue the search for answers to the more complicated mysteries of this world...

[Yonivore]

because it cannot be proven or disproven using the accepted principles of scientific inquiry. It's a philosophical/theological question.

So, you agree with most Darwinists that the "appearance of design" in DNA sequencing and cellular nanotechnology is merely illusory?

The theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information-hardly the simple "globules of plasm" envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries.

Moreover, most of these circuits and machines depend on the coordinated function of many separate parts. For example, scientists have discovered that bacterial cells are propelled by miniature rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look for all-the world as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints, and drive shafts.

Could natural selection have produced this appearance in a neo-Darwinian fashion one tiny incremental mutation at a time? Biochemist Michael Behe argues 'no.' He points out that the flagellar motor depends upon the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Yet the absence of any one of these parts results in the complete loss of motor function. Remove one of the necessary proteins (as scientists can do experimentally) and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."

This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages. If a random mutation helps an organism survive, it can be preserved and passed on to the next generation. Yet, the flagellar motor has no function until after all of its 30 parts have been assembled. The 29 and 28-part versions of this motor do not work. Thus, natural selection can "select" or preserve the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it can do nothing to help build the motor in the first place.

This leaves the origin of molecular machines like the flagellar motor unexplained by the mechanism-natural selection-that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.

Is there a better alternative? Based upon our uniform and repeated experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems, namely, intelligence. Indeed, whenever we encounter irreducibly complex systems--such as an integrated circuit or an internal combustion engine--and we know how they arose, invariably a designing engineer played a role.

To suggest that biological cells and their cons uent parts evolved from nothing is akin to saying a Ferrari could materialize on the top of Mount Everest if the component chemicals were given enough time to arrange themselves over and over and over and over and over again...

[Yonivore]

So, how do we know the statues of Easter Island were made by human hands?

[Phenomanul]

To suggest that biological cells and their cons uent parts evolved from nothing is akin to saying a Ferrari could materialize on the top of Mount Everest if the component chemicals were given enough time to arrange themselves over and over and over and over and over again...

And even a Ferrari is no match to the level of complexity contained by most organisms....

[Oh, Gee!!]

NOW... that is completely different from saying one can't measure the genetic complexity of a gene...

One, it is measureable... Two, the pursuit to understand how it arose is scientific....

ID doesn't stop at measuring the complexity of things, it gives an unverifiable explanation for that complexity, God. What methods do you propose for providing evidence of that conclusion?

[Oh, Gee!!]

There is a flaw to the above argument...

Is that what Galileo would have said of the Hubble telescope?

You must use the newest technologies available to pursue the search for answers to the more complicated mysteries of this world...

What technology are ID'ers proposing? ID is a supra-scientific explanation for what we haven't yet discovered.

[Phenomanul]

Again I'll point you to this...

Of course, many will still dismiss intelligent design as nothing but warmed over creationism or as a "religious masquerading as science." But intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.

Even so, the theory of intelligent design may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. To say otherwise confuses the evidence for a theory and its possible implications. Many scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to challenge the idea of an eternally self-existent universe and pointed to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But scientists eventually accepted the theory despite such apparently unpleasant implications because the evidence strongly supported it. Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design. Nevertheless, it too must be evaluated on the basis of the evidence not our philosophical preferences or concerns about its possible religious implications. Antony Flew, the long-time atheistic philosopher who has come to accept the case for design, insists correctly that we must "follow the evidence wherever it leads."

[Oh, Gee!!]

So, how do we know the statues of Easter Island were made by human hands?

Biology and scientific inquiry?

I'm now a creationist.

[Oh, Gee!!]

But intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.--Originally posted by some dip then taken for granted as Truth by Yoni and hegamboa

Because biological data can only explain so much. So what? We fill in the blanks or finish the story with theories that can't be tested by any available scientific means?

[Yonivore]

Biology and scientific inquiry?

There is no physical evidence they were crafted by humans. It is presumed they were simply because they bear the tell-tale marks of design.

Same thing with life. It's fundamental cons uent parts bear the tell-tale marks of design.

Archeology is a physical science aimed at solving mysteries such as the construction of the Easter Island statues, Stonehenge, etc...

Why deny there is just as much of a benefit to exploring the apparent design features of biological structures?