… you forgot the “scientific” part of the controversy as outlined by this site. The inclusion, by this site, of the cultural controversy is due to the fact that there are some scientific theories which do have a cultural impact and the authors of this site realize that and are interested in addressing those issues. Do you think that scientific theories necessarily do not have cultural impact or that philisophical views will not have scientific repercussions?

I think I see where you are coming from, however, I still SLIGHTLY disagree. First, I do agree that the definition of science is at stake, yet I don’t see how the definition of science as “the discipline which attempts to explain phenomenon in terms of laws” hinders ID in the least. Furthermore, as I understand it, that IS the definition of science. Science is testable, repeatable, and can generate predictions only because it deals with laws. According to this reasoning, ID is on the side of the present understanding and definition of science, and abiogenesis via random, accidental, chance and highly improbable occurences is not in the least bit scientific (where are the laws?). Of course, as I have stated before, the problem with finding a law of “super- quantum” physics to account for the origin of information processors is in the fact that information is not defined by laws of attraction. However, information IS defined by its compatible processor and conscious intelligence (which may result form quantum occurences) as the generator of information IS basically a law.

Now, the next step is to discover how the subprogram of life (replicating information processors) was programmed to begin within the larger program of the universe.

Fross:
“So is ID dead as a scientific theory? Not really because it hasn’t really been born yet. (correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve yet to see an official theory of ID and I believe I’ve seen that admitted time and time again here.)”

Do you believe that there are any other scientific theories for the origination of information processors?

How do you define an “official” scientific theory? I think the official scientific theory of ID is summarized as “information processors can only be generated by conscious intelligence.”

This is similar to the scientific theory of evolution which states that “life can and has changed over time by the addition of and mutation of genetic information.” Now, just because there are many different viewpoints as to how this has occurred (the discovery of the scientific laws which are created by life) does not mean that there is no “official theory” of evolution.

Fross:
“Like I said above, as a political controversy it got slapped down several levels, but I do think on a cultural level it will be around as long as the sky god religions are around.”

If conscious intelligence is NECESSARILY equal to the “sky God” you refer to, then you have a point. However, I personally think that even if the “sky God” (and I’m not sure how literally you are using that term) were to vanish from culture, ID would still be around. In fact, I’m sure what you said about the “sky God” could be restated more accurately as: “but I do think on a [scientific] level [ID] will be around as long as [consciousness is viewed as a result of quantum occurences and/or some other level which precedes or is not necessarily contained within our universe].”

So is ID dead as a scientific theory? Not really because it hasn’t really been born yet. (correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve yet to see an official theory of ID and I believe I’ve seen that admitted time and time again here.)

Like I said above, as a political controversy it got slapped down several levels, but I do think on a cultural level it will be around as long as the sky god religions are around. (I don’t mean this with disrespect, but as a way to encompass the religions that typically believe in God(s) that oversee day to day things and take an active role in them. By the very nature of believing in a deity that takes active roles in the natural world, you will want to try to figure out where those events happened. So far humanity has usually believed those events happened in the most mysterious aspects of the world around us.

What I can say, although without 100% certainty (since that sounds a little unscientific itself) is that we are dealing with a phenomenon (replicating information processing systems) with a metaphysical foundation (information) and two sides are attempting to explain its origin with scientific theories … well, actually, since random, accidental, chance occurrences with extreme improbabilities do not a scientific theory create, then only the other side (ID)has the actual scientific theory — the theory [or even law] that only intelligent, conscious beings can account for the origins of information processing systems.

IF science is interested in finding the reality behind our existence the materialistic/ non-materialistic “thing” is very relevant to science.

If science is NOT interested in the reality behind our existence then it is worthless and should be abandoned.

One thing experience has demonstrated- It matters whether or not that which is being investigated arose via some intelligent source or via nature, operating freely.

Fross, I definitely do not agree with you.

Could you please define “religious” vs. “scientific” and “material” vs. “nonmaterial” for me please.

I personally define “religion” as the beliefs and the lifestyle, including moral codes, which arises from those beliefs that one abides by. (according to this definition, atheism is NOT a religion, for it has no moral code or lifestyle which arises from the core tenets of atheism [since atheism has no core tenets or doctrine]).

And, I personally define “science” as “the discipline which attempts to define phenomenon in terms of laws.”

As to the material vs. non-material idea, this is a much harder topic to demarcate. What exactly is material? What is matter? Is “quantum foam” non-material, if it existed before our “material” universe which is governed by natural laws which seem to arise from quantum occurrences? If quantum events give rise to “material” or matter, are these quantum events super-material? If consciousness arises from quantum events as Paul Davies (as far as I understand) seems to hypothesize, is consciousness non-material or super-material? Are super-material and non-material one and the same? Or are you coincidentally defining non-material as “that which does not exist,” in order to “prove” that the non-material does not exist and is therefore religious. I sure hope not, for that would be quite the skewered “argument.”

However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I’m sure you are defining non-material as “that which exists outside of our universe.” In this case, though, non-material entities would include possible multiple universes, any consciousness that resides outside of our universe, quantum occurences themselves (since they preclude our universe), and then consciousness itself (if indeed it arises from any type of quantum events).

But,the main problem I have here is the connection you seem to imply between “non-material” and “religion.” Of course, I will need to see your definition of “religion” in order to understand how, exactly, you make the connection. Is consciousness possibly “religious,” are multiple universes “religious,” and is whatever caused our universe “religious?” Are you mistaking metaphysics with religion?

BTW: ID (in my eyes) definitely deals with scientific phenomenon in a scientific way.

First, it notices that conscious intelligence, if it can affect a system, will impart information into that system. I personally think that this can be stated as a law or at the very least a theory. In order to falsify it, one would just have to show one example of a conscious, intelligent being that had the capability of imparting information into a system yet had never done so.

Second, ID notices that information is not defined by any natural laws. Instead, it is defined by an information processor (more on my own blog under information vs. natural laws). Of course, the information processor does operate according to natural laws, once it is set up. But, that’s the key — “once it is set up.” Since the set up of the processor and the information within the set up is NOT defined by any law, it takes more than just law and chance (see the lattest on my blog) to create an information processing system. Well, the rest only takes a scientific inference …

What this has to do with religion, I do not know. I would say, if anything, ID attempts to deal with a metaphysical property (information) as scientifically as possible. Of course the same can be said of whatever caused the big bang, and consciousness. Information, the cause of the big bang, and (most likely) consciousness are metaphysical however that does not mean that we can not attempt to examine them as scientifically as possible.

Read comment #12. Once people realize what the options are the materialistic anti-ID position will lose ground and continue to do so.

This is one of your best essays ever, and you have provided inspiration for some more writing on my part.

Denyse comment #1:

…the mathematical probabilities of Darwinism…

They are nonexistent. I’ve blogged about this at UD, and this should be a complete no-brainer for anyone with a basic understanding of mathematical combinatorics. The improbabilities of the creative powers of Darwinian mechanisms are not just exponential in nature; the orders of magnitude compound exponentially.

Denyse comment #2:

…the current generation of Darwinists operates on faith, mostly……

When it comes to cosmological fine-tuning, one has two alternatives: 1) fine-tuning is the product of design, and a straightforward evaluation of the evidence would suggest such a conclusion, or 2) fine-tuning is an illusion created by the fact that there is an infinitude of random universes (for which there is no evidence, that are in-principle undetectable, and that must be assumed because of a philosophical commitment to the notion that design cannot possibly exist).

Which conclusion is the product of reasoning based on evidence, and which conclusion is the product of blind faith?

Much more to come…