November 14, 2008

ID is Inherently Religious

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID is Inherently Religious, Not Scientific

This should be voted the most common tactic. As noted earlier, ID studies pattern in nature that are best explained as the results of intelligence. Many special or specific sciences already study such patterns and draw design inferences. Examples include forensic science (did that person die of natural causes, or was there foul play?) and archaeology (Arrowhead or rock?). It is scientifically legitimate to recognize the work of an intelligent agent, even if that agent is unknown, as it often the case in archaeology.

The science of design do not apply merely to human designers either. Beavers, for instance, build dams that we recognize as designed. Design need not be restricted to Earth. SETI, as seen in the movie Contact, is looking for intelligent aliens. The working assumption of SETI is that we can distinguish an intelligently produced signal from random radio noise.

Critics discount ID because its designer is supposed to be unobservable. However, in science we have a "many-worlds hypothesis" to discount how finely tuned the laws of physics are to allow for the emergence and sustenance of life. If we are only one of many universes then it shouldn't surprise us that we find ourselves in a universe uniquely crafted for our existence. The existence of multiple universes has never been observed, in fact, they are such that they can never be observed! Does this mean the many-worlds hypothesis is rendered unscientific? Of course not. Observability is therefore not a necessary condition for an explanation to be scientific; macroevolution has never been observed.

Another exclusion of ID from science is that science only deals with what is repeatable, and nature's designs are unrepeatable. Is Big Bang or origin of life repeatable? Science has no clue how to repeat either of these events in a lab; yet they are clearly within the realm of science. If repeatability is considered a necessary condition for science, then disciplines such as archaeology, anthropology, cosmology, and paleontology must be excluded from science as soon as they discover some unique artifact or feature of nature. Since those disciplines are included within the realm of science despite their unrepeatability, ID also must be included.

Faith in Christ, is for everyone's salvation and a creation explanation. Explanations of creation are in the Bible and the purpose is to glorify Him. Forced into science? Who cares, get saved!

ID, on the other hand, does try to find design within science and should be allowed to play! ID only seeks to identify a "design of things" within nature. That is not asking for too much.

ID does not have to prove it is a science-it already is. Richard Dawkins, surprisingly, agrees, "the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." (RD, The God Delusion, 58-59)

UPDATE: For more information on Intelligent Design here are some resources:
Access Research Network
Answers Research Journal
ID Network
IDEA
Institute for Creation Research
Intelligent Design
International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design

26 comments:

  1. What are you trying to pull off now, Dan.

    You referred to the Kitzmiller trial.

    You mischaracterized ( or probably copied and pasted someone who mischaracterized) what Judge Jones said.

    Kitzmiller, et al, successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism.

    The trial exposed the schoolboard members as creationists who were using the "wedge theory" to try to sneak creationism in via ID, which turns out to be creationism in disguise.

    The discovery institute is a creationist outfit all the way, but they are trying to disguise it so it may be more palatable to school board members and judges.

    The lawyers for the plaintiffs showed, that the ID definition showed itself to be creationism:

    Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.

    He compared this with what was eventually published:

    Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.

    Busted.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Froggie,

    I am confused did you mean to post that HERE?

    "Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact:"

    Did you even read what I just wrote?

    "Biblical Creationism, my belief, has an agenda, I will admit, and should not be forced into science. Agree 100%!!"

    Dude, does that even makes sense to you????

    I have a great idea, comment on what I just posted here instead of arguing a past post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Dan,


    Could you please point me in the direction of some Intelligent Design research that I could read up on?

    I'd just like to know what it is that they actually do.


    You cited forensics and whatnot, but they use systematic, scientific method that achieves measurable results.

    What is it that ID proponents do, other than looking at what other scientists have uncovered and saying, 'oooh, that looks designed!'?

    I'd genuinely like to know,

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  4. ExPatMatt,

    "Could you please point me in the direction of some Intelligent Design research that I could read up on?"

    I am sure I can find some but on the sidebar here at DA I have put some websites that does just what your asking for.

    Here are a couple:

    Access Research Network
    Answers Research Journal
    ID Network
    IDEA
    Institute for Creation Research
    Intelligent Design
    International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
    True Origin

    Hope that helps.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cheers, I'll get on it and let you know what I think...

    ReplyDelete
  6.      Why, yes, the "many worlds" hypothesis is unscientific. It is not testable in any way. Now, if there were many worlds and we could observe them, it would still not be scientific. It would then be an empirical observation. (Incidentally, the conclusions of forensics are not scientific theories either.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. From the "Intelligent Design" link:

    "Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

    Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed."

    Can anybody site a case where irreducible complexity has been shown to be valid?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan, if you want ID to be taken seriously as science,let's see it pass the most basic test of all. Kolmogorov complexity.

    If ID can't answer the most simple of challenges, it can forget about being published in peer-review or taken to court to be put into textbooks.

    Wanna talk science? BRING IT ON.

    To equate SETI with ID is either intellectually ignorant or dishonest to say the least.

    If you knew what Kolmogorov complexity is, you'd know what Dembski's trash isn't science.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ok,

    *Access Research Network*

    I couldn't find a link to a single piece of original scientific research on their front page and almost all the links lead to somewhere where you can purchase someone's book. The rest of the website is all commentary, news stories, merchandise and games.

    *Answers Research Journal*

    A bit better; there's stuff about bacteria! And you can download PDFs of the articles! Oh, wait, now they're talking about the role of microbes in the Creation account...I thought you said this was ID, not Creationism?

    *ID Network*

    This sounds promising...hey; 'Objectivity in Origin Science', I like it!
    And then they go and spoil it by promoting Expelled! (yes, I've seen it. Yes, I researched the cases presented. Yes, it's bunk)

    At least they present a definition of ID ('things look complicated') but I see no research - no experimentation. Just books and DVDs to buy.

    *IDEA*

    More of an advocacy group than a scientific research org, but I'll give it a look... Ok, Casey Luskin apparently has a hypothesis for testing whether something is designed...

    Right. So the predictions are all things that we already see in the naturalistic model, except that you say you're testing for design. Wow. Colour me unimpressed.

    *Institute for Creation Research*

    Not ID. But take a look at their 'Resource for Scientists' when talking about the rapid deposition of sedimentary rock:
    http://www.icr.org/earth-formation/
    Funny stuff.

    *Intelligent Design*

    Meyer
    Dembski &
    Behe.

    This does have a fair amount of sciencey looking stuff; I may look into this further. I guess these are the top guys in the field, right?

    *ISCID*

    Essentially a forum for everyone from the other websites to share their ideas, no?

    *True Origin*

    This almost exclusively exists to attempt to debunk Talk Origins. Not ID.

    So of the 8 links you provided, there's 1 that appears to have some actual science in it. Not very promising for your position really. And the fact that 1 was a Creation site kind of goes against your post here...

    Thanks for the links though, I'll have a look at what Meyer & co. have to say and get back to you.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  10. Unethical Chum Tin said...

    Can anybody site a case where irreducible complexity has been shown to be valid?

    Unfortunately, science doesn't quite work that way... for better or worse. Given any case where irreducible complexity has been "shown to be valid," one can always make the case that we as scientists just haven't thought of the correct evolutionary path yet. An answer of "we don't know how this evolved" doesn't support ID, and would only go into the (relatively short) list of issues under evolution.

    Put another way, irreducible complexity can't be proven because it makes assumptions on human infallibility of thought (which we all know... isn't infallible). If we were infallible, then humans not being able to come up with answer would be proof towards ID.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Slim,

    Is that you Josh otherwise I just was talking to your parrot alter ego

    ReplyDelete
  12. ExPatMatt,

    fair enough, You are presenting some valid points, even if its sarcastic.

    SO your position is that we cannot be both ID believers and Creationist's? Can someone that believes in God of the Bible also have a belief in ID?

    I may have overstepped the definition of Biblical Creationism then.

    I see it like this:

    Biblical Creationism = Design, as in supreme being, Godhead, Jesus!

    Intelligence Design = Design, by some form of, intelligence. (as it obviously states in name)

    Maybe the rest are interlinking it as in, who else but God can, design this or that.

    This disorganization is possibly what is preventing secular scientists from taking us seriously. I believe its fear of Jesus myself. The Dover trial was detrimental for this subject because BC decided to water design down by calling it ID and that disingenuous move blew the whole deal.

    Does ID have a chance if we identify the intelligence as Jesus?

    Probably not since scientists are commonly secular.

    Do you know what I think? I say who cares if they do or don't, because that will not save them on Judgment Day. I am sick of "accommodating" people on this subject. Jesus is Lord and Creator of all.

    Maybe I did misspeak when I said that Biblical Creationism shouldn't be forced onto science.

    Faith in Christ, is for everyone's salvation and a creation explanation. period

    ReplyDelete
  13. Pvblivs ,

    Both very valid points.

    So then "many worlds" is rendered unscientific. Science is actually science fiction? Or does that just render them hypocrites?

    ReplyDelete
  14. BY them I meant secular scientists

    ReplyDelete
  15.      Actually, it just means that not everything a scientist says or does is science. There is also the fact that people can mistake non-science for science.

    ReplyDelete
  16. David,

    Thank you. ...My point, exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dan,
    You said,
    "Biblical Creationism, my belief, has an agenda, I will admit, and should not be forced into science. Agree 100%!!"

    OK, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Frogie,

    I was doing a very bad thing, after thinking about it. I was accommodating people and trying to "meet in the middle," which is a very slippery slope. What I said sure doesn't glorify God! I was compromising God for non-believers and it sure felt icky afterwards. I spoke before I thought and it was just wrong. I do have my weak moments.

    I rephrased that statement to: Faith in Christ, is for everyone's salvation and a creation explanation. Explanations of creation are in the Bible and the purpose is to glorify Him. Forced into science? Who cares, get saved!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dan,
    You said,
    " I spoke before I thought and it was just wrong."

    And the froggie sayeth, "Thou art forgiven, my son."

    You are a very sensitive guy, Dan.

    Lighten up. Chill.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dan:

         No, no, you were right the first time. Biblical creationism does have an agenda and it has no place in science. It is not science. It does not matter whether it is true or false, it is not science. The only thing you were accommodating was truth. If that feels icky, it tells me all I need to know about the "get saved" line.

    ReplyDelete
  21. ID *is* inherrently religious. And this is one of the main reasons that it's so readily dismissed as being a-scientific.

    I checked out a few of the links you posted (ie. True Origin, intelligentdesign.org, ICR, etc)and I'll continue to read more. Interestingly, I found that most of them were anti-evolution.

    Only creationists assert that the theory of evolution and "God did it" are incompatible. Plenty of other people (including Christians) feel there's room for both.

    This association (intelligent design & anti-evolutionary "propaganda") hurts ID's chances of being taken seriously as Science.

    If you've got a hypothesis, and have even subjected it to testing enough to validate calling it a theory, the very last thing you want to do is start criticizing theories which don't agree with yours.

    Real science, honest-to-goodness "We want to find out what's really going on" inquiry - it avoids propagandizing. It relies as much as possible upon factual & tangible justifications for it's validity. It does not spend any time talking about bias against its ideas.

    This inability of ID proponents to seperate their supposed cause from criticism of non-Biblical theories dooms them to mediocrity.

    Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Whateverman:

         None of what I am about to say applies to the current situation; but I would like to address the claimed general principle.
         If a group of people had formed a hypothesis and were trying to conduct experiments to test the hypothesis, but were denied spending, funding, or anything else that might be critical to conducting the experiment on the grounds that the hypothesis "was no good anyway," they would indeed be justified in asserting that there was a bias. If they conducted experiments that they said supported their position and the larger community discarded them without even trying to replicate the experiments, they would be justified in claiming a bias. There are circumstances in which "real science" really would talk about bias against its ideas. I hope never to see those circumstances. But I think it inappropriate to suggest that science would content itself to being silenced if that were the actual actions of the powers that be.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Pvblivs ended with But I think it inappropriate to suggest that science would content itself to being silenced if that were the actual actions of the powers that be

    I dont think that I've suggested this; even if I'm wrong about that (because the written word is easily misunderstood AND/OR written poorly), I know that I haven't suggested "contentment" in any way.

    To address your point (as I understand it), I don't think that rejection by mainstream science is necessarily an indictment of the veracity of that rejection. Any scientist worth his weight in pocket protectors knows that scientists are people, and that personal bias often intrudes on what should be an ideally "opinionless" discipline.

    In short, rejection doesn't invalidate the hypothesis.

    In the specific case of ID, however, it seems to not be willing to subject itself to the rigors of the scientific method - while still lamenting the bias that supposedly prevents its ideas from mainstream acceptance. Recent conversations on Dan's blog being an exception to this, it's seemed to me that ID wants to play at being scientific, but isn't willing to actually try to BE scientific.

    Hypothesis, experiment, theory, peer review - as soon as ID starts producing data as other scientific endevors do, it's will be accepted as a peer. Failing that, it is not science.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Now Dan, why do you keep making me think that you can't read straight?

    You said;

    "So your position is that we cannot be both ID believers and Creationist's? Can someone that believes in God of the Bible also have a belief in ID?"

    Where did you get the idea that that was my position?

    This post of yours is claiming that ID is not inherently religious and yet (at least) one of the sources you pointed me to for ID research was a Creationist site. All I implied was that this didn't lend much credence to your case.

    The more I read your question (above), the more stupid it looks. It is my position that the vast majority of IDers ARE religiously motivated, not that you can't be both; how did you get that so wrong?

    You go on;

    "This disorganization is possibly what is preventing secular scientists from taking us seriously."

    I would suggest that it is the lack of actual science that achieves this.

    "I believe its fear of Jesus myself."

    You're free to believe this, but it does fly in the face of the many thousands of theistic scientists around the world. They may not be Creationists, but they certainly don't fear Jesus. Of course, the atheist scientists don't fear Jesus either....because he's dead.

    "Does ID have a chance if we identify the intelligence as Jesus?"

    Is there any EVIDENCE to suggest that Jesus was the designer?

    "Probably not since scientists are commonly secular."

    Any statistics to back this up?

    "Do you know what I think? I say who cares if they do or don't, because that will not save them on Judgment Day. I am sick of "accommodating" people on this subject. Jesus is Lord and Creator of all."

    Chill out, man.

    "Maybe I did misspeak when I said that Biblical Creationism shouldn't be forced onto science."

    So it SHOULD be forced onto science??

    "Faith in Christ, is for everyone's salvation and a creation explanation. period"

    Whatever floats your boat, but if there's no evidence then it won't be accepted by mainstream science.

    Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dan,

    So, do you just abandon these threads as soon as things don't go your way?

    I see you've neglected to reply in the conversation we were having at my blog, I take that to mean that you haven't grown up yet. Oh well...

    ReplyDelete
  26. ExPatMatt,

    "Whatever floats your boat, but if there's no evidence then it won't be accepted by mainstream science.

    Sorry."


    You are right. sigh

    "So, do you just abandon these threads as soon as things don't go your way?"

    Sometimes. What more can I say? I am frustrated? Well, I am.

    "I take that to mean that you haven't grown up yet."

    Um, no not yet but check back with me later.

    It takes only a moment to become a Christian but the making of a Saint is the work of a lifetime. It takes time for the fruit to mature. I sure have a long way to go to be Christ like.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>