dear newbies,

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================

William Dembski, one of the leading proponents of ID said in response to the question "Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?":

=====================================

Wrong Question.

The question should be: "What is your definition of Intelligent Design Theory in scie ...[text shortened]... that much faith to believe that such things come about accidently.

The question should be: "What is your definition of Intelligent Design Theory in science?"

Good point and I admit I was lazy in my search. I really don't look very hard in these. Let's point out some definitions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm

and others. They all essentially talk about natural causes not being enough to explain the phenomena that we see. If natural causes aren't enough, doesn't that leave the supernatural?

I'd be curious as to what the intelligent design community sees as a natural intelligence that might be this designer too, assuming that intelligent design does claim that.

Just curious too, if intelligent design doesn't require god, then is there a prominent supporter of intelligent design who is an atheist? If ID is only about natural causes then it should be possible. I know this doesn't prove anything, but it would be interesting to see what an atheist supporter of ID would say about it.


I have read Darwin's Black Box and I don't recall any such definition of ID.

It's irrelevant what Behe said in that book. It doesn't mean that isn't what he said when he was under oath in a court room.

You want to think accidents over a long long time arrived at a human reproductive system without the aid of "Know How" and intelligence?

You complained earlier about arrogance, and it's funny that you come off as exactly that. The problem is you continually show that you don't know what evolution actually states (i.e. your claim before that an ape to human transition in birth not being observed in the lab - which is NOT what evolution claims).

You go ahead and embrace that belief. I don't have that much faith to believe that such things come about accidently.

I don't have all that much faith, only in evidence. It's funny that you think 98.5% (I'm sorry I don't have a link to the actual survey) of all the scientists in the field where evolution's evidence is most evident all take this on faith.

One other thing about Michael Behe. Are you aware that he accepts the fact of common descent? He agrees that we are descended from other primates. I give him credit for acknowledging that evidence.

Unlike William A. Dembski [19] and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species,[20] including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

I would have no problem with accepting intelligent design. All they need to do is prove their case using the scientific method. I.e. do experiments to verify falsifiable predictions, publish peer reviewed articles, argue their cases at conferences and convince people of it. That's just what evolution had to go through and it's only fair that any scientific theory should have to.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
i have noticed a lot of new posters here. if you are new, you should know that it pays to be an atheist. if you are a theist, lay low and try to not stir up any debates, you will lose.

You tell 'em, Comrade.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
i have noticed a lot of new posters here. if you are new, you should know that it pays to be an atheist. if you are a theist, lay low and try to not stir up any debates, you will lose.

You're a good cheerleader.

================================

and others. They all essentially talk about natural causes not being enough to explain the phenomena that we see. If natural causes aren't enough, doesn't that leave the supernatural?

=======================================

I see it as the detection of intelligent causation. That is different from identification of the intelligent agent.

Identification of the intelligent agent may lay beyond the scientific method. Determinization of intelligent causation does not.


===================================
I'd be curious as to what the intelligent design community sees as a natural intelligence that might be this designer too, assuming that intelligent design does claim that.
====================================


I'd be curious too. Francis Creek thought life had been seeded on the earth by some other intelligent source.

Maybe the cause is supernatural. ID as a science is concerned with the detection of intelligent causation.

First things first. Identification may be the realm of a discipline other than science, ie. philosophy or spiritual beliefs. That can be kicked around outside of the science class.

The question with ID is is there reason to believe that intelligence was a causing factor of the arrangement of natural phenomenon.



Identification is another matter. Detection of an intelligent cause is a science in itself. It is used in forensic criminology, archeology, insurance fraud, and SETI (search for intelligent signals from outer space)

=================================

Just curious too, if intelligent design doesn't require god, then is there a prominent supporter of intelligent design who is an atheist? If ID is only about natural causes then it should be possible. I know this doesn't prove anything, but it would be interesting to see what an atheist supporter of ID would say about it.

====================================

I don't think the first place to look is whether the scientist is athiest or theist. I think the first place to look, as far as ID as Science is concerned, is does the researcher have convincing evidence that intelligent causation was at work.

You would want me to examine the evidence of a Darwinist FIRST, wouldn't you? Or would you like me to first inquire whether s/he is theist or atheist?


=================================
I have read Darwin's Black Box and I don't recall any such definition of ID.

It's irrelevant what Behe said in that book. It doesn't mean that isn't what he said when he was under oath in a court room.
===============================


Not really. Lawyers get paid bog buck for having the skill to maneuvor people into a position where they can say incriminating things. That's their job.

But if you have something in the testimony of Behe which mentions "God" in the definition of ID, please quote it for me. Remember, the question should be what is the Definition of ID as a science.


I'm not interesting in what some weasel wording attorney was able to courner Behe into making statements self incriminating by appearance only.

Have to go now.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]================================

and others. They all essentially talk about natural causes not being enough to explain the phenomena that we see. If natural causes aren't enough, doesn't that leave the supernatural?

=======================================

I see it as the detection of intelligent causation. That is different from ident ...[text shortened]... to making statements self incriminating by appearance only.

Have to go now.[/b]

Identification of the intelligent agent may lay beyond the scientific method. Determinization of intelligent causation does not.

As long as you can actually define what "intelligent causation" actually looks like. It's not order and it's not complexity, we know that. What is it then?

I'd be curious too. Francis Creek thought life had been seeded on the earth by some other intelligent source.

Right, but if you're talking about what I think you are, he thought of it as an intelligent life form - which is a natural reason and would then have science asking how did they do it. This also has to do with how life originated, not what intelligent design covers.

Identification is another matter. Detection of an intelligent cause is a science in itself. It is used in forensic criminology, archeology, insurance fraud, and SETI (search for intelligent signals from outer space)

All of those are very different than what intelligent design really is purporting. All of those are cases, except SETI, are cases where we have prior evidence to compare with. We do not have anything to compare with when it comes to design in organic life forms. SETI also is very tentative - they look for patterns and then they can only conclude a maybe at best.

I don't think the first place to look is whether the scientist is athiest or theist. I think the first place to look, as far as ID as Science is concerned, is does the researcher have convincing evidence that intelligent causation was at work.

Obviously as far as science is concerned evidence is the most important thing, but that wasn't my point. My point is that if the designer in intelligent design is a natural force of some sort then it should (assuming it has the facts to back it up), attract atheists as well as theists. Like I said, this doesn't prove anything conclusively by any stretch, but it is an interesting question.

You would want me to examine the evidence of a Darwinist FIRST, wouldn't you? Or would you like me to first inquire whether s/he is theist or atheist?

Of course, but that wasn't my point.

Not really. Lawyers get paid bog buck for having the skill to maneuvor people into a position where they can say incriminating things. That's their job.

Of course, and by that definition we can't suggest that John Wayne Gacy was guilty because it was all "fancy lawyering" (note, this isn't supposed to be quoting you, just using it as a term).

Behe openly admitted that astrology would have to be admitted as a scientific theory if ID would be and frankly, that's a pretty bad case.

This is the definition as stated in the text book "Of Pandas and People" that was promoted by the Discovery Institute (the primary supporter of ID):

"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, wings, etc"

This is pretty much crap and there's really no evidence to back this up. It definitely does not say supernatural explicitly, but since ID simply puts this "designer" into an unkown, it's pretty shady and pretty bad science. Especially since there's no way to falsify the gap filled by the designer because it's just "well, the designer did it". I also think this definition, while doesn't say supernatural, almost makes it plain that one would have to be supernatural to have these creatures just pop into existence as-is.

To Michael Behe's credit, he has said that he doesn't believe in the above definition of ID.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/national/19evolution.html

Behe accepts common descent (i.e. that we and chimps and other apes have a common ancestory), but he thinks that the mechanism requires a designer. He just rejects the concept of natural selection and mutations as being the driving force.

Ok, here goes. How about a discussion comparing and contrasting two significant thinkers -- Albert Camus and Viktor Frankl?

I've learned not to argue with people about their religious beliefs. As long as they don't try to enact them into law and thus force them on me or deprive me of any of my rights under present law thru passing a religious-based law, folks should be free to believe the moon is made of green cheese if they so desire.

The fact that people model some good behaviors and obtain comfort and strength from what other people might describe as irrational beliefs is not necessarily a bad thing, so long as it doesn't bleed over and clot the real world where I live.

What's interesting to me now is the idea of spirituality that is independent of any traditional deism. I am referring to the kind of spirituality that Viktor Frankl described in two books: Man's Search for Meaning, and Man's Search for Ultimate Meaning.

Up until recently, even though I had read Frankl's first book while a young man in college, I accepted the view expressed in Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus." I propose a discussion of the two views. Not a debate, not an argument, a discussion.

In the meantime, I'm going to post a few Einstein quotes, for this is where I've wound up now, holding to the views he expressed. And I got there not by reading Einstein, but by studying the philosophy (not the religion) of Buddhism as practiced originally in what used to be called Burma.

Einstein said:
# Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
# My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
# The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
# Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
# The scientists' religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
# There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.
# The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.
# True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness.
# Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelationship of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to form in the social life of man.

Einstein also said:

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest-a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty.

The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books---a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.

What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

Originally posted by Scriabin
Up until recently, even though I had read Frankl's first book while a young man in college, I accepted the view expressed in Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus." I propose a discussion of the two views. Not a debate, not an argument, a discussion.

All right. I'm familiar with Camus' views. What does Frankl say?

Originally posted by jaywill
You're a good cheerleader.

i'm just warning any new posters because "spirituality" may be misleading. this isn't a place to speak to fellow religious folk, without being criticized.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
... That strikes me as amusing. "My" religious beliefs have zero political power. ...

You put words into scottishinnz mouth. scottishinnz did not say

“…the church doesn’t have any influence over politics…”

he actually said:

“…the church SHOULD relinquish any influence it has over politics…”

(which is a proposition that I happen to agree with).

=========================================

“…the church SHOULD relinquish any influence it has over politics…”

==========================================

In our church prayer meetings we sometimes pray for the leaders of our country or of another. This is according to Paul's instructions. We petition God that the leaders would humble themselves and look to God for wisdom.

We firmly believe that God hears the prayers of faith of His people for the political leaders of nations.

How are you going to regulate this kind of influence over the government? Do you propose to send police into our prayer meetings arresting people for praying for presidents, senators, governors, mayors, etc. ?

You can't stop people from praying to the God Who is there concerning wise leadership of governments.

==============================

Right, but if you're talking about what I think you are, he thought of it as an intelligent life form - which is a natural reason and would then have science asking how did they do it. This also has to do with how life originated, not what intelligent design covers.

===================================

PscychoPawn, You have a few more ideas that I can respond to at this time.

However, let me ask you a few things:

Are you concerned that if some scientist says that s/he detects that the functions of, say, the human cell hold evidence of intelligent design, that there will be nothing else to study?

Sometimes I get the impression that skeptics of ID feel that a belief in intelligent causes will cause the science community to throw up there hands and say "Oh well, God must have done it. No need to explore anymore or research anymore."

I do not see ID as the end of explaration as to HOW things work.

I think we can recognize intelligent design in the functions of a living cell and still have decades if not centries of further exploration into HOW these mechanisms operate.

I just wonder if there are any critics of ID out there who would be willing to drop this false accusation that ID dumbs down education or scientific research.

Concerning Behe and common descent. I got to know that he believed in common descent the day I bought his book. That information is right there on the book Jacket I believe. No great shocks.

I would expect those leaning towards ID to come with varied views.

When Behe came and spoke at a local university I went to hear him. Afterwards I asked him a specific question, the essence of it was:

"What do you say to your fellow scientists who say that you have just thrown up your hands and said that certain things are too complex and that some Intelligence (God, ie.) must have done it?"

His reply to me was that his decision to persue Intelligent Design did not derive from what he did not know. It derived from what he DID know.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=========================================

“…the church SHOULD relinquish any influence it has over politics…”

==========================================

In our church prayer meetings we sometimes pray for the leaders of our country or of another. This is according to Paul's instructions. We petition God that the leaders would humbl ...[text shortened]... 't stop people from praying to the God Who is there concerning wise leadership of governments.[/b]

Perhaps you haven’t yet realised that I am an atheist in which case you should know that I am.
I do not believe that there is any ‘god’ or any ‘gods’.
You strongly imply that I was referring to influencing government through ‘pray’.
But obviously I was not referring to people praying because I don’t believe there is a god and therefore I obviously don’t believe that when people think they are praying to god that they are doing just that. Instead I believe they are praying to a fictitious entirety that does not exist.

So, in answer to your question:

“…How are you going to regulate this kind of influence over the government?…”

My answer would be that pray does not influence government because there is no god that listens to those prays so obviously I wouldn’t “regulate” it nor did I imply that we should. Obviously I wouldn’t propose to ‘stop people praying’ for the same reason why I wouldn’t propose to ‘stop people playing tiddlywinks’ : I don’t believe either has any influence in government.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==============================

Right, but if you're talking about what I think you are, he thought of it as an intelligent life form - which is a natural reason and would then have science asking how did they do it. This also has to do with how life originated, not what intelligent design covers.

===================================

Ps n did not derive from what he did not know. It derived from what he DID know.[/b]

Are you concerned that if some scientist says that s/he detects that the functions of, say, the human cell hold evidence of intelligent design, that there will be nothing else to study?

No. I'm concerned about the fact that intelligent design isn't science yet at least. It hasn't put forward falsifiable predictions, it doesn't participate in the scientific community to prove their hypotheses. The movement simply tries to inject itself into the classroom via the courtroom and by lobbying politicians.

The fact is that the ID movement has its roots in the "creation science" movement that tried to inject that into the classroom the same way that many in the ID movement is trying to inject itself into the classroom. This is something that makes scientists legitimately wary. Another thing is that there are those in the ID movement that reject much of the evidence that is there that pretty much proves things like common descent. If the ID movement wants to be taken seriously in the scientific world then they have to acknowledge the incontrovertible evidence that is there and distance themselves from the people who think that the world is anything close to being in the thousands of years in age.

Also, look up "the wedge document" sometime. It should give you yet another reason why scientists a bad feeling about the ID movement.


If the science is valid then they should go through the same process every other scientific claim goes through. It's not fair that they get to claim victimization and be taught just because they want to. The main problem I have is the watering down of science.

I think we can recognize intelligent design in the functions of a living cell and still have decades if not centries of further exploration into HOW these mechanisms operate.

We KNOW a great deal about how cells work, the main question from an evolutionary point of view is how the evolve and how they change. I don't care if you think there's an intelligent designer, but don't think that this is anything but exchanging one unknown with another unknown. Science is about exchanging unknowns with knowns, not a vague term.


I just wonder if there are any critics of ID out there who would be willing to drop this false accusation that ID dumbs down education or scientific research.

I don't think it's a completely false accusation.


His reply to me was that his decision to persue Intelligent Design did not derive from what he did not know. It derived from what he DID know.


And that's a pretty meaningless statement. I don't blame him for giving it, that kind of forum isn't exactly a place where he could give a complex answer. It just doesn't actually say anything meaningful.

Young earth creationists claim today that they believe the earth is 6000 years old or so because of what they know. The problem is, it's not 6000 years old and you have to ignore a whole lot of knowledge to believe it to be.