UK Centre For Intelligent Design Claims It Will Focus On Science, Not Religion

_{Clive Hayden

October 1, 2010

Culture, Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Dr Alastair Noble, director of the Center for Intelligent Design in Glasgow, says ID is ‘consistently misrepresented as a religious position’ and he’s ready to engage the debate on the grounds of actual evidence, according to this article at the UK’s Guardian.

Comments

gpuccio and Upright: The english language doesn't recognise the use of the word "consciousness" as a noun. It is an adjective (or an adjectival form anyway) that describes the properties of a noun. A human being exhibits consciousness. An octopus exhibits consciousness. It is not grammatically correct to say "a consciousness".zeroseven_{October 6, 2010
October
10
Oct
6
06
2010
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

es58: Yes, it was "designer". I am happy to be with Behe on that, but I believe that we are not alone in the ID field.gpuccio_{October 5, 2010
October
10
Oct
5
05
2010
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

GPuccio Thanks for your response: To clarify, you wrote: The problem is: does the design build a new species “from scratch” each time, only reutilizing his I assume you meant to write: The problem is: does the design[er] ... My reason for asking is that many who argue against Behe seem to make much of the fact that he "accepts common descent". But, if his view of it is similar to yours, as I suspect, then it's actually virtually no "concession" at all, and I get confused why they make so much of it. Thanks again.es58_{October 5, 2010
October
10
Oct
5
05
2010
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

es58: Your example is common descent, because obviously parts of the software has been reutilized at each step, and the sequence you describe is a sequence of software "objects". My concept of common descent is simple: I think that the designer works on existing implementations and changes them to realize a new implementation. I don't know if that is accomplished by a search, or by direct "writing" of the new information, or in other ways. There are many possibilities, and I have discussed some of them in the past. Just to be clear: There are continuities in the design which, as far as I can see, can be explained only as either common design or designed common descent. There is no doubt that the design is common: proteins do show continuity and variation inside a same island of function. The problem is: does the design build a new species "from scratch" each time, only reutilizing his "software"? Or does he work on an existing species to transform it into a new one "remodeling" the existing information in its natural context, already existing living beings? I believe that arguments exist for the second option, but I don't believe that the question is really settled. Until we know more about the modalities of implementation of information in natural history, it will be difficult to say more. And, frankly, I have never thought that this problem is so important as many seem to believe. I maintain that the fundamental point is design, and not common descent. I have true difficulties in understanding why the question of common descent is so important for many.gpuccio_{October 5, 2010
October
10
Oct
5
05
2010
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

GPuccio somewhat off topic, but it is about science and design: I believe you've said you support the concept of common descent. Question: DOS -> Windows 3.0 -> Windows 95 -> Windows 2000 -> Windows NT -> Windows XP -> vista -> windows 7 -> Windows ME Is common descent for you more than this? ie: all these operating systems "descended" from DOS, but not because Bill Gates development teams locked them inside a computer and exercised some evolutionary algorithm on them. If you do claim common descent is more than this, can you point me to a link where you describe it in more detail? x 36594 Company Confidential - Internal Use Onlyes58_{October 5, 2010
October
10
Oct
5
05
2010
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

zero, The evidence for design is based upon tangible, physical artifacts. It is unscientific to suggest those artifacts must be treated differently because they may imply something against your ideology by way of their physical make-up.Upright BiPed_{October 4, 2010
October
10
Oct
4
04
2010
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

zeroseven: it's always a consciousness doing it, in all cases. No consciousness, no design. And I don't know what you mean by "a disembodied consciousness. If a consciousness implements design in a physical support, it certainly need some physical interface. So, it is in principle no more disembodied than the human consciousness we well know. How can you say that human cosnciousness is not a "disembodied consciousness" acting through a physical interface? In principle, all that we know is that in any act of design we have: a) A consciousness representing forms, meanings and purposes in itself. On the "embodiment" status of that consciousness we would be wise if we kept a humble attitude, as long as we have no real clue oif what consiousness really is. b)A physical interface through which consciousness can act on physical reality, as much as perceive it. c) A physical support on which the representations of consciousness are in some way "imprinted", conferring to it the designed form (the designed output). So, if yopu intend by "physical and material" a process which does not require consciousness, then design is never "a physical and material process". On the other end, if you intend "a process where a consciousness, whatever its nature, imprints its representations on a physical support through a physical interface, then design is always a "physical and material process involving a conscious origin". The nature of the consciousness is not really important, because it remains a mystery both for humans and for a god (at least in materialistic terms). It's the process (conscious representations - physical interface - physical output) which counts. And the process is the same, whatever the consciousness which designs.gpuccio_{October 4, 2010
October
10
Oct
4
04
2010
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Joseph: "Is design a physical and material process?" Yes, when we observe human beings and other animals doing it. No, when you posit a disembodied consciousness doing it.zeroseven_{October 4, 2010
October
10
Oct
4
04
2010
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

zeroseven: Is this the position of ID people here? That science should be more than a study of physical and material processes? That depends- Is design a physical and material process? As for what science is all about- well science is all about figuring out the reality behind the existence of what it is we are investigating- period.Joseph_{October 4, 2010
October
10
Oct
4
04
2010
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

equinoxe: It seems that I really did! Thank you for your "vast essay". Really appreciated. Just a couple of thoughts. There is nothing bad in using concepts like natural as provisional categories in a context where they can be really useful. The bad is to believe that they bear an absolute meaning, and that they can be used to build dogmatic maps of reality. A long time ago I accepted the distinction between map and territory, and the principle that maps must be useful, rather than obtusely realistic, as a fundamental part of my personal approach. I have never regretted that. Laws are interesting and powerful (even probabilistic laws, with their interesting ability to describe by law what is not explained by law). But after all, laws could just be the output of consciousness, like information, only a little but more "inertial". Another categorical "axis" I would really like to question, after "natural - supernatural", is "material - non material". First of all, a true definition of "material" is today really elusive. A definition which makes sense could be "having mass", which at least is clear from the point of view of physics, but would leave out a lot of entities of physics which have no mass. Another possibility is to equate "material" with "physical", but that would leave us with the even more subtly ambiguous second word. What does "physical" mean? I am afraid most reductionists would equate "physical" with "anything which can be explained in principle with what we already know", so that they can provide a foundation to the modern view of science as something which cannnot discover anything fundamentally new. For a recent example of stoic reductionism, and of its implicit ideology, please look at post #26 by zeroseven (thank you for the cooperation, 07 :) ). So, is dark energy (whatever it is) "physical"? Is consciousness? I can certainly agree with my religious friends who are ready to state that consciousness is not "physical", but our statement woul probably be more to the point if we could be more aware of the many meanings that "physical" can have, or not have. I am afraid that the most recent, and ambiguous, meaning gained by that word in the bleak ideology pervading our times is something like "truly existing", "truly real". That's how materialism and physicalism have asserted themselves in the minds of people, not by any intrinsic merit, but by the sheer power of bad words. The simple consequence is that consiousness, a pervading and fundamental fact in our everyday experience, must certainly be "physical" too, or rather not exist. It is interesting to note that many reductionists even prefer the second option, denying consciousness as a concept tied to subjective experience (which it is) and redefining it (in the most arbitrary cognitive jump I have ever seen) as "software loops" or (as we have recently witnessed here) as "a third order model". Those less audacious seem to be contented to describe it as an "emergent property" (maybe the most ambiguous, and frankly stupid, concept in all human thought). I believe in the primary importance of consciousness. But I am probably not even a true dualist. I only say: consciousness is a fact: let's treat it at least like all other facts, let's remember that it exists, and try to describe it correctly. We will fins that many important things can be said about consciousness, and its interactions with other known fact, even remaining strictly empirical, if we just renounce the need to immediately classify it as "emergent property" or "mere supernatural principle".gpuccio_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT}

Losing the distinction between natural and supernatural is not, for me, a real problem, but rather a bonus.
Ha, gpuccio, seems you thought as I did, while I was writing my vast essay. Word up.equinoxe_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

Peepul, Thank you for the clear definition of terms you offer (#22, #24). I think it is helpful to start out by noting that the natural/supernatural distinction is an artefact that (for right or wrong) arose during the Middle Ages and the early modern period. The Enlightenment drove the wedge deeper still: witness the rise of deism, a clockwork universe, "intervening" deities, miracles "violating" laws, and so forth. We are pretty much still there. The typical view of the world that most people you or I meet harbour is that of a kind of a giant machine that clicks over happily (nature), whilst forces on the "outside" (supernatural ones) are perhaps (a) responsible for its construction, and (b) tamper with it from time to time. Now, you might object that quantum theory and special relativity have disturbed this picture of the world. To which I would reply: yes, but it was like a loud BANG that got everyone's attention, they all paused and looked, and then kept on with their business. Frankly, these latter developments in physics, shocking though they were, have hardly caused people to revise their beliefs at all. We are still just machines (only now we don't even dare joke that they have ghosts in). To some extent, ID stands in this tradition. It assumes that causes and effects operate in a mechanical sense so that information that propagates as one physical state of affairs ticks over gracefully to the next is either lost, transmitted, or added to from somewhere else in the larger system, but never created. So much is uncontroversial (and it is surprising how much opposition such a bland observation meets). But whence this information? ID tends to think of intelligences as minds that inject the requisite information into physical systems---human, divine or otherwise. Notoriously, ID doesn't specify which! This is often viewed as a weakness by the opponents of ID. Those who don't believe in God accuse ID of secretly labelling their intelligence "God" and failing to be upfront about it. Theologians who do believe in God accuse ID of neglecting to label their intelligence "God"---and failing to be upfront about it! Personally, I consider core ID's agnosticism on the matter a strength, and I'd rather keep it that way. I don't know whether ID is right or wrong. I do however know that if the world is the tightly-formed network of mechanical causes and effects, then (a) the appearance of design is inexplicable unless (b) ghosts exist, so to speak. There is at least one ghost: me! I knew this before I ever read any radical materialist philosophy. But even this is unsatisfactory, as it renders causes themselves unintelligible. Why does one thing cause another to happen with such regularity? We know that a dropped coin regularly falls towards the ground unless it meets some opposition. And this scenario can itself be analysed into ever more basic principles at work, as you know. Now, this is what you no doubt consider the realm of the natural. But this natural behaviour is inexplicable. Why should the coin fall every single time? Saying it is "natural" for the coin to do so---and to stop there---is simply to offer a half-explanation. The modern period moved the "nature" out of the coin, and into a more abstract realm: a mathematical description. Now the coin is an inert blob of matter subject to "laws". Perhaps the laws are spoken (or thought, stated, enforced) by the supernatural creator? Certainly deists thought (and think) so. This, in recent times, has caused difficulties for philosophers who recognise that natural laws require a lawgiver and yet wish not to appeal to a supernatural entity for explanation: "supernatural" now meaning "super"-law! This more or less brings us to your definition of supernatural, I think. (Recently, philosophers of science such as Cartwright have desperately started to shove the nature "back into things" to avoid exactly this!) Another feature of the mechanical view is the consideration of "freedom" in terms of choice, options, and the like. Freedom is considered in terms of degrees of freedom: freedom to move in a space, for example. Freedom to do otherwise. But this is intolerable: the same era that defines freedom as genuine choice, also says there is no genuine choice! Or at best, it relegates the true free chooser to a nigh-on fantasy realm of minds, spirits, etc. Another option that is promoted is simply not to think about it and to enjoy yourself as much as possible. To be honest, I have held to this mechanical view ever since I was young. I only recent started questioning it, and I have all but abandoned it as unworkable. It just throws up a ridiculous number of problems---and seems clearly wrong. I seriously consider you review the work of scholastic philosophers. Try reading Edward Feser's Beginners Guide to Aquinas (or philosophy of mind)---both books are cheap as chips on Amazon. Granted, Feser comes across anti-ID. Why am I recommending an anti-ID book on an ID website? Well---because it is good. And certainly, you will be in a better position to approach ID having read Aquinas (regardless of whether you hold any religious belief). I actually think that Thomist beliefs can be synthesised with ID (I see there is a post to this effect just appeared). Finally - and this is the advice I'd give myself 10 years in the past if I could: "Don't be so damned squeamish boy!" (I'd say to myself!) I say this because of your comment:
For me, this doesn’t necessarily mean there is something non-material about it.
Why not? Doesn't affirming the existence of non-material entities (let alone substances) make you feel all shameful and unintellectual? I used to hedge my bets like this. I used to lean towards materialist explanations out of pure embarrassment. (Aren't dualists somehow mentally impaired?) Then I realised I had 70-odd years on this Earth to investigate these questions. I owe materialists of consciousness nothing. Their opinions are both recent and radical. They receive more than their fair share of airtime because of their pretensions to being "scientific". Read around, give ideas a fair hearing, come to your own decision. Including one for or against ID. I say all this in a friendly spirit. I wouldn't want anyone else to waste their time like I have.equinoxe_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

This quote from the Guardian article is interesting: Dr Noble criticizes the "strident strain of science" that says the only acceptable explanations are those depending on "physical and materialistic processes". Is this the position of ID people here? That science should be more than a study of physical and material processes? If that is the case then I think you are doomed as this is precisely what science is and all it claims to be (I thought).zeroseven_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Peepul: I am really happy we agree on many things. My impression is that too many people become entangled in dubious definitions and categories, while the real purpose is always to understand better reality. I do prefer, for "natural", definition a). Losing the distinction between natural and supernatural is not, for me, a real problem, but rather a bonus. I like to thing that everything is supernatural. It is equally correct to think that everything is natural, but somewhat less poetic :) Definition b) is really disappointing, but it is indeed what most reductionists really mean when they speak of the horrible "methodological naturalism". There could not be a more repelling concept for me, as I neither believe that a scientific method really exists (I am in a sense a Feyerabend fan), nor that "nature" really means anything. The problem is: how can we pre-define what is admissible in science and what is not? If we had let scientists at the end of the nineteenth century do that (and they certainly tried) we would live in a world of systematyzed mathemathics, of finished physics, and with no notion of relativity, quantum mechanics or the Godel theorem. And yet we are daily troubled by phycisists who are sure that with their four laws they can explain everything, of biologists who seem to know everything about OOL and biological information, and who boldly redefine theories as facts, of neurologists who without a moment of hesitation declare to mass magazines that the fact that consciousness is caused by the brain has been proven beyond any doubt, of astrophysics who are certain that they have substituted gravity to God, and so on. And it is so rare to read a single sincere statement such as yours: "For me, this doesn’t necessarily mean there is something non-material about it, but there is a mystery here." Thank you for that.gpuccio_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

Gpuccio, 'Well, I suppose that here the problem is that life is not a clear concept. I would suggest that we don’t talk anymore of “life”. I can agree, however, that biological life as we know it expresses itself, always, through complex, designed structures. Is that enough for you?' Yes, it is. 'a) Something that is present in reality. In that sense, consciousness is certainly natural. In that sense, at least for me, God is certainly natural.' I understand that definition. I think a downside of it is that there is no place for the supernatural in it. We lose the distinction between natural and supernatural. 'b) Something that can be fully explained by our present understanding of physical reality. In that semse, consciousness is not natural. We are not natural. Probably, all living beings are not natural.' This definition has a downside too (though I think all definitions will, including any of my own). Nothing we have yet to understand can be natural. So quantum gravity is not natural, for example. Similarly, until this year, the zodiacal light was not natural. I think that restricts naturalness too much. I agree with you that we do not understand conscious ness. Even if we understand exactly how it correlates with neurons firing in the brain, it's hard to see how that can explain the experiential aspect of consciousness. For me, this doesn't necessarily mean there is something non-material about it, but there is a mystery here.Peepul_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Clive, previously:
Everything stands or falls on its own merits, to say that Genesis is “wrong” means that there is some merit which you find incorrect with regard to the natural history of the world and humans in Genesis. On what other grounds would you find fault with it if not its own merits?
I think there is some confusion here about the phrase "stands or falls on its own merits". I am simply pointing out that ID doesn't import any premises (still less conclusions) from Genesis, or religious texts or doctrines more generally. If a theory about rabbits rests on a theory about carrots, then if the carrot theory is disconfirmed, so is the theory about rabbits; that is, they stand or fall together. All I am saying is that with ID and Genesis it is not like this. The truth of Genesis and ID are separate issues (though they may interact in wider-ranging discussions of course).equinoxe_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Thanks Equinoxe. 'May I ask another question for clarification. When you say this or that happens “naturally”, what do you mean? If I have some X in mind (a material object, a process, an idea, etc.) by what principles should I decide whether or not X is natural? Is anything unnatural?' This is an extremely good question. I'm making this up as I go, so I welcome feedback... The 'intuitive' meaning I have for natural is 'without the intervention of a supernatural being'. In itself that doesn't answer your question but I hope you will see my motivation. So now the question is 'What is a supernatural being'? I don't have a very clear answer to this. My first thought is : if there is a unified set of laws of the universe, any being that can choose not to be subject to them is supernatural. Pretty much equivalently, we could define a being as supernatural if it can define the laws of physics to be what it wants. This is quite a narrow definition - limited to beings with choice about the laws. I think choice is important - if a being has no choice about the laws it obeys, it can be regarded as following some set of laws and could then arguably be regarded as natural. Let me know what you think.Peepul_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

equinoxe,
ID might be true, whilst all creationist claims (dependence on Genesis, ideas about age of the earth, Adam, the flood) are false. So ID stands or falls on its own merits.
Everything stands or falls on its own merits, to say that Genesis is "wrong" means that there is some merit which you find incorrect with regard to the natural history of the world and humans in Genesis. On what other grounds would you find fault with it if not its own merits? And on this head, the atheist cosmology also stands or falls on its own merits. I could easily claim that the lack of any book or agreement between modern atheists and atheism throughout time with regard to cosmology means that it is a false cosmology. What is believed today wasn't believed yesterday. That in tying their cosmology to the ever-changing ship of "modern" knowledge that this has proven to be a sinking ship as that knowledge changes. Christianity was never wed to its theology by the proton or electron, but the materialist has no such luxury, their worldview is indeed wedded to modern "knowledge" of the material, which will soon cease to be modern at all as a bit more time passes, as will the cosmology. I do not see how this ever-changing cosmology can be used as a fixed and lasting true standard or example with which to compare the truth or falsehood of Genesis throughout all of time. You cannot overtake Jones if you are always walking in different directions away from him. Clive Hayden_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Peepul: Thank you for the questions. Good questions are always appreciated. I think equinoxe has done a very good job answering. I will anyway give my perspective. I’m not sure what you are saying here. If complex specified structures are designed, and are part of life, then isn’t life designed (at least partly)? Well, I suppose that here the problem is that life is not a clear concept. I would suggest that we don't talk anymore of "life". I can agree, however, that biological life as we know it expresses itself, always, through complex, designed structures. Is that enough for you? But the real point is that life (in the sense of biological life as we know it) and intelligent consciousness are not the same thing. More on that later. Are you open then to the natural origin of consciousness? So that the designer could have arisen naturally? I always stay really away from words like "nature" and "natural". They are semantic traps. Let's try this: I define "natural" in two different ways: a) Something that is present in reality. In that sense, consciousness is certainly natural. In that sense, at least for me, God is certainly natural. b) Something that can be fully explained by our present understanding of physical reality. In that semse, consciousness is not natural. We are not natural. Probably, all living beings are not natural. So, can we come to a compromise? I state that consciousness is a fact. It is directly experienced in ourselves, and very reasonably and universally inferred in others. As we have no theory which can explain consciousness in terms of other parts of reality (believe me, we haven't), our scientific duty is to consider consiousness as a part of reality, to describe it correctly, and to study its properties and the ways it interacts with other parts of reality. Design is part of conscious activity. It has distinctive trademarks which allow to detect it in outputs, and at the same time it has distinctive conscious patterns which are associated to its procedures. That's what ID analyzes. Discussions of "natural", "eternal", and so on are philosophical contexts which can be brought about as we keep in mind the results of ID theory, but ID theory definitely preceeds them, and does not need them for its conclusions. Again: consciousness and intelligence are facts, directly and indirectly observed. Scientists cannot go on without them, and cannot go on pretending they have explained them in reductionist terms. Simply, it is not true.gpuccio_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

markf @17:
What a lot you read into a reported comment in a press item!
Ok, but still a fair comment even with the UD hysteria stripped out.
Actually if you read it carefully you will see that the comment does not entail that ID disputes the age of the Earth or common ancestry.
Poisons the well. It is a like an article which is supposed to be about an anti-immigration lobbyist, which just "happens" to talk an awful lot about racism. Journalists are experts in connecting as little as possible together; they get their readers to do it. [I am pro-immigration!]
ID is, of course, a great help to those who do dispute these things.
Irrelevant, guilt by association. ID might be true, whilst all creationist claims (dependence on Genesis, ideas about age of the earth, Adam, the flood) are false. So ID stands or falls on its own merits. The Guardian are ---assuredly--- printing what their readers want to read.equinoxe_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Hi Peepul, Thanks for your questions/comments and their careful presentation. I can't answer for gpuccio, but the questions interest me anyway. (Perhaps gpuccio will get around to addressing them in his own way later.)
Q: I’m not sure what you are saying here. If complex specified structures are designed, and are part of life, then isn’t life designed (at least partly)?
A. It hangs on whether complex specified structures are essential to life. If CS structures are required for life [ID is silent], and CS structures require a designer [ID says yes], then life requires a designer.
Q: Are you open then to the natural origin of consciousness?
A: ID doesn't say anything about this as a core claim. Of course, ID adherents might have opinions about it. Most would say no, I would guess.
Q: So that the designer could have arisen naturally?
A: That would be incoherent. The designer of nature could only arise naturally if he/she/it arose from (a) design-free aspects of nature, and/or (b) other designed aspects of nature for which another designer was responsible! Option (b) leads to a designer. Option (a) is difficult to defend. May I ask another question for clarification. When you say this or that happens "naturally", what do you mean? If I have some X in mind (a material object, a process, an idea, etc.) by what principles should I decide whether or not X is natural? Is anything unnatural?equinoxe_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

#10, #11 What a lot you read into a reported comment in a press item! Actually if you read it carefully you will see that the comment does not entail that ID disputes the age of the Earth or common ancestry. ID is, of course, a great help to those who do dispute these things.markf_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Gpuccio, thanks for your comments. Can you expand on this? 'It is not life that, according to ID, is designed, but the complex specified structures that we find in living beings'. I'm not sure what you are saying here. If complex specified structures are designed, and are part of life, then isn't life designed (at least partly)? You also say :- 'We have no clue about the nature of consciousness and intelligence. Therefore we cannot in any way say if all conscious intelligence must be designed' Are you open then to the natural origin of consciousness? So that the designer could have arisen naturally?Peepul_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

Thanks for your answers to my arguments everyone - I will read them carefully and give you my thoughts.Peepul_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

BA: Thank you. A recommendation by Abel is indeed a guarantee.gpuccio_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

LoL-
However, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the arguments against the theory of evolution put forward by creationists and those who advocate intelligent design (ID) are invalid.
Did you guys get that? Apparently there isn't any evidence that the arguments are invalid, just a consensus. Always nice to have a consensus when you don't have any evidence...Joseph_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, here is another book that looks to be a gem: Programming of Life - by Donald E. Johnson http://scienceintegrity.net/ProgrammingofLife.aspx Excerpt: Evolutionary biologist George Williams observed, "Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter... These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term ‘reductionism.'. I highly recommend this book." David L. Abel, Director, The Gene Emergence Project further notes: The Cell - A World Of Complexity Darwin Never Dreamed Of - Donald E. Johnson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4139390/bornagain77_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

uoflcard: What I particularly appreciate is the "very simple common ancestors" stuff. Now we know. And, obviously, there is no controversy. So what is it? Was LUCA very simple? I had the impression that most of scientific literature was of a different opinion. But I must have dreamt of controversy where obviously there is none. But probably, Reiss was not speaking of LUCA. He was probably speaking of LCAs (LUCA's Common Ancestors), a well known presence in the literature, for which I have just created an useful acronym which was probably needed. And we all know that LCAs were simple. Really simple. There is no controversy about that.gpuccio_{October 3, 2010
October
10
Oct
3
03
2010
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

This quote from the article stood out to me:
I asked Michael Reiss professor of science education at the Institute of Education in London what he thought about the Centre for Intelligent Design. He replied: "In a free society it is important that organisations that do not accept the scientific theory of evolution are allowed to exist and to proclaim their message. However, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the arguments against the theory of evolution put forward by creationists and those who advocate intelligent design (ID) are invalid. "In a school setting this means that while teachers of science are perfectly at liberty to address creationist and ID issues, should they so wish, students must not be given the impression that there is a scientific controversy over whether the Earth is very old (about 4.6 billion years old) or whether all species descend from very simple common ancestors."
WOW! The ignorance of someone supposedly at the epicenter of the debate is absolutely mind-boggling. ID does not dispute the age of the Earth OR common ancestry! It is absolutely jaw-dropping how ignorant the vast majority the "consensus" is about Intelligent Design. Keep up the arguments from authority without having the slightest clue how to begin to state your opponent's argument, Dr. Reiss. That seems like the cool-headed, reasonable way to go about this debate: Pure, unbridled ignorance.uoflcard_{October 2, 2010
October
10
Oct
2
02
2010
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

Peepul, You're objecting apparently to ID based on the assumption that a designer is incongruent with nature, and that this makes ID non-scientific. It would in my view be difficult to say something is unscientific while appealing to a non-scientific argument to make your case. You could of course argue scientifically that ID is wrong, but it makes no sense whatsoever to argue scientifically that it isn't scientific - such an argument would have to begin with certain presuppositions of what we mean by science, and those presuppositions themselves are not scientific. During the Dover trial Michael Behe stated that even astrology is scientific, but in fact wrong. It deals with areas in which science can investigate, and in fact, can be falsified scientifically. A designer being incongruent with nature is not something you could actually know by looking at nature. It's a presupposition, which finds no support in nature. Now the issue here is that Darwinists use the fact that not knowing a designer's relationship with nature as being evidence that such a designer does not exist or is unnecessary, and then the "science" is used to support that contention. This is clearly an issue of begging the question. And that question-begging unexamined, is applied to the issue of apparent design. The argument sort of goes like this: we've already proved (by begging the question) that a designer is incongruent with nature. Therefore, what appears designed cannot be actually designed. Regardless of your religious views - I'm allowing that you might be a theist? You're giving credence to a position, which makes God unnecessary scientifically, and if God is unnecessary scientifically, then it is easy to conclude by that that God does not exist. This is not a scientific analysis of anything we see in nature, but a metaphysical presupposition. Fine. We can work with our presuppositions. The one thing we can't do, however is to charge other views of science based on a contrary presupposition as not being in fact science because they don't correlate with our particular metaphysical presupposition. This is particularly supported by the fact that science developed in the West out of certain theistic presuppositions. The fact is that theists do science quite well with their theistic presuppositions. And it would be incorrect to charge that they set aside those presuppositions when doing science. Quite the contrary, many theistic scientists work within theistic presuppositions when doing science, and quite often come to the same or similar conclusions as those who do not. But obviously there will be certain areas where there are schisms between those who operate within materialism, and those who operate within theism. To say that where the road forks, science follows the materialists is to presume too much. But ID works within very narrowly defined terms, which exclude historical biblically based creationism (while not dismissing it), and at the same time exclude the presupposition of materialism - not defined as simply the cause-effect relationships in physical phenomena according to laws of nature, but the assertion that material essence is all there is and all there can be. By operating within these certain terms, ID is able to make certain observations, which a priori materialism dictates against; and those observations do not presume theism. The observation that DNA as complex specified functional information in our experience always arises out of mind with a purpose as opposed to random operations of the laws of nature then, is not an unscientific observation. There's no appeal to theism inherent in such an observation. That such an observation, like the observation that the universe was apparently caused implies theism, is a whole other issue; which is appropriately discussed and worked out from outside of science. But the implications of a theory because they are theistic do not rule out the theory itself as unscientific. If that were the case, Darwinism suffers just as much as ID.CannuckianYankee_{October 2, 2010
October
10
Oct
2
02
2010
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply