Can Intelligent Design be a Logical & Rational Answer?

[dmmesdale]

You asked what value it had, how many times (?) and i answered. Now you are whining.

 

[dmmesdale]

No, I m just describing the "value" it has for you in objective terms.

It objectively determines how i live my life. That being since i have no control over how you live yours.

 

[Speedwell]

It objectively determines how i live my life. That being since i have no control over how you live yours.

ID does that? I would have thought that as a Christian there would be something in your life of more importance.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Intelligent design could be a logical and rational answer to the existence of our specific universe, or perhaps just the life on this particular planet, whether you deem that the designer must be a deity or not. It's just that the evidence that supports that sort of position is extremely lacking. However, that does not mean that there could never be evidence for it in the future. I highly doubt anything along the lines of the biblical 6 day creation would be supported by new evidence, but it is entirely possible that this planet was seeded with life by an organism that developed elsewhere. Unless that organism returned, it'd be unlikely that we'd get significant evidence for it any time soon. That organism could well have many of the traits we associate with deities... or not. However, the distinction between possible and likely must be kept in mind. Until more evidence is found for intelligent design, it is not logical to hold it as the best explanation for life on Earth or the existence of the universe.

 

[pitabread]

If it is a question of origin of life then yes ID is legit. You need to explain why it is not.

*sigh*

That's not how this works. IDists are putting forth the idea that life on Earth the result of some external entity's work. The burden is entirely on them to demonstrate that this idea has merit. They don't just get to say, "Hey, we have an idea! You have to take us seriously until you prove us wrong!"

If you think ID is a legitimate scientific challenge to what we know of life on Earth, then the burden is entirely on you to put forth a compelling argument.

You did not read the book you are assessing. Now you are making excuses for your failure to do your homework.

What excuses? I'm just pointing out it's just a book published by HarperCollins. Lots of books are published by HarperCollins. Again, this doesn't automatically give them scientific validity.

Meyer has no control over how publishers, non scientists classify a book. This is simply nitpickinig straining out gnats to swallow camels.

I'm making fun of the fact that its not published as a science book. It's a cheap shot, I admit.

If not then what entitles you to say what can and what cannot be in the classroom?

What entitles me is that you don't just start changing school science cirriculums based on some random person getting a book published. Especially when the motivation in the past has been for demonstrably non-secular purposes. Not unless you want to wind up in court, which is precisely what has happened several times now.

You wish to teach kids they come from slime without the competing hypo because it is according to you unscientific?

"Come from slime" makes for some cute hyperbole, but it's a bit of an understatement of what the theory of evolution actually is. And no, you don't get to insert unscientific alternatives just because you find the findings of mainstream science unpalatable.

And that has value? Value relative to what? If we are from slime as you suppose then what value do we objectively have over say an earthworm a cockroach or a rat? Or are you creating subjective fictions in your head which have no basis in objective reality life really has no objective purpose. So why bother over what is and what is not taught?

The theory of evolution underpins a lot of modern biology and has real world applicability in various fields including agriculture, medical research, conservation biology, forestry, etc. For anyone looking to pursue a career in biology, it's something they need to learn about.

Why else do you think we teach it?

Consensus says the Earth is flat. A new paper suggests the Earth is really a sphere. Rejected as unscientific because there are no published papers supporting the new theory. See how that works?

Nobody said that challenging the status quo was easy. Indeed, overturning mainstream evolutionary biology would be no small feat. But ultimately science is concerned with understanding the universe and everything in that universe. If ID can offer a more compelling explanation for biological origins and the diversity of species on this planet than existing theories, then great! But the burden is on ID proponents to come up with the scientific model to support that.

Thus far it doesn't appear that they have.

Right and you did not read Signature In The Cell yet. How do you know that since you have not referenced source material?

I'm not sure why you're so hung up on one particular book. I've read quite a bit of ID literature preceding it including Darwin's Black Box, No Free Lunch, The Edge of Evolution, among others, plus a variety of other papers and writings authored by various ID proponents including Meyer.

Is there something particularly compelling about Signature in the Cell? Does it break new ground that hasn't been covered in other publications by ID proponents? Was there some ID breakthrough in the latter half of the 2000's that I'm not aware of?

Problem with who and why? Does that presuppose one has to be an atheist to be a scientist? What is your problem with Theistic scientists? More importantly, what does your personal prejudices have anything to do with science?

Let me apologize for the way I worded that part of the previous post. I didn't mean to suggest I had a problem with theists at all.

Rather, I meant that the ID movement is caught up in a religion vs science battle that has been going on for quite awhile now, particularly with respect to creationist movements. Creationists challenge science because there are findings of science that conflict with their particular religious beliefs.

ID is generally viewed as just the latest variation on creationism, being pushed not because it's a legitimate challenge to science, but rather because of an attempt to push religious beliefs particularly evangelical Christianity. Hence the fact that IDists rather than trying to convince the scientific community of their ideas and push ID from the "top down", are circumventing that in favor of just shoving it directly into middle schools.

The result is that ID gets painted as just another religious movement.

Have some cheese with your whine.

Oh, I'm not whining about creationists pushing ID. I'm saying it's actually problematic for the ID movement itself. In a way, it's kind of screwed over the concept of ID which by itself could be very compelling by itself.

Instead it's largely viewed as just creationism under a different guise.

 

[pitabread]

Well for one it has truth value. The applicable value would fall under the category of the identity of the Designer. If we go thru life believing we have no accountability for life lived to our Creator then we are absolute fools.

So basically you're admitting that ID is just another form of religious belief.

Why do we want ID in the science classroom again?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's a cheap shot.

In my defense, he makes it very easy to deliver such shots...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

You are always welcome to point to a practical application of such, if you think they exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're a little premature with the goading there. I'm doing my best to understand exactly what appears to be a nonsensical question, means.

Keep your shirt on.

There is nothing nonsensical about asking what the actual contribution to science has been for any given idea.

Several people, including myself, have already given you quite a few examples in context of real theories to illustrate what kind of answer we are looking for.

Once again, I must conclude that you still have not answered the question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, I might get it now, and it was somewhat what I expected all along, I just couldn't believe anyone was hiding such a basic/common question among all that wordyness. And as I see it now, what a waste of time.

If all the scientists that presently explain how we appeared from nothing, or whatever nonsense you/them claim the universe came from, were to keep all their scientific information to themselves, except to say it started on it's own, and evolved, then I asked you the details of the coming about of the universe, how would you answer, when you were never given the information?

Are you capable of just answering the question about ID please?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you can't come up with any practical applications for ID, you have no proposed mechanism for how the design gets into the biological structure.

Nore does he have any reliable methodology on how to detect design and differentiate it from non-design.

You are entirely satisfied with a theory which says nothing but "evolution by variation and selection couldn't have done it" and offers no alternative explanation whatever. OK.

That much is clear.

ID is, after all, no more or less then a gigantic argument from incredulity/ignorance as it all rests on the idea of "look at how complex this is!"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well for one it has truth value. The applicable value would fall under the category of the identity of the Designer. If we go thru life believing we have no accountability for life lived to our Creator then we are absolute fools. No matter what is accomplish. He lets us have our day and He will have His with us.

This makes ID indistinguishable from just another religion.
Clearly, this is just religion and not science.

Hitler certainly thought so. Inferior Jews and advanced Aryans. Kill them off with Zyklon B (Thank you science for Zyklon B) so they will not corrupt the gene pool.

Ow, goody... godwin's in the house again, and he's as ignorant as ever!

It does. Truth always has value over myth.

Truth is demonstrable. Otherwise, it's just a religious belief like so many others.
Science is demonstrable. ID isn't.

It is wrong and therefore has no value. It is modern myth.

Millions of farmers, breeders, medical researchers, etc around the world, disagree that it has no value.

Here's a simple example of the practical application of evolutionary biology...
On the right, you see a banana as it appeared in the wild in nature. On the left, you see what we turned it into by evolutionary mechanisms and artificial selection:

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It objectively determines how i live my life. That being since i have no control over how you live yours.

In contrast...

Physics objectively determines how everybody designs and engineers vehicles.
No matter what their religion is. A hindu designed car isn't based on "hindu physics" while a christian designed car is based on "christian physics".

 

[dmmesdale]

Pardon me for jumping in...
If it is a question of origin of life then yes Abiogenesis ('naturedidit') is legit. You need to explain why it is not.

Already have. Not precedent, no evidence and violates biogenesis. The personal beliefs of scientists does not equal science. They are dependent on their star status to sell their beliefs.

If it is a question of origin of life then yes the story in the Hindu scripture is legit. You need to explain why it is not. See why yours is an untenable position?

No. I do not. Ten wrong answers do not invalidate a right one.

Rather than gush over Meyer, answer this - How is it, exactly, that you know that the things he claims are accurate and scientifically or mathematically valid?

For one, i read the book. Have you?

Yes, all non-evangelicals 'teach' that we came form slime.

Slime alone absent intelligence or a living source. It is wishful thinking by God phobes. What are they afraid of? Why do they live in fear?

But you teach that we came form dust, and that only certain people are 'chosen.'

A living super intelligent first cause flows from the evidence.

Why do your 'teachings' have any greater value than ours (considering for the sake of argument that the negative claim against reality-based science is correct)?

What negative claim? Also science is limited and inadequate regarding the totality of life. It does not say anything about right or wrong, good or bad or value regarding how we live. Folks can deny God but it is quite another to assert the universe has no cause or the first cause of bio life here is nonliving. Such assertions are right up there with flat Earth.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Are you capable of just answering the question about ID please?

You win TGM,

For those who are a little slow to catch on.. you win, I have no answer for you.

 

[pitabread]

no evidence and violates biogenesis.

The concept of Biogenesis is in regards to fully formed modern organisms appearing spontaneously from non-living matter (i.e. spontaneous generation). However, it does not explicitly preclude life arising from non-life, especially if we are talking about a process involving various stages of non-living precursors.

The idea that biogenesis is this hard and fast rule absolutely prohibiting the origin of life from non-life is a misunderstanding of the concept.

 

[dmmesdale]

The concept of Biogenesis is in regards to fully formed modern organisms appearing spontaneously from non-living matter (i.e. spontaneous generation). However, it does not explicitly preclude life arising from non-life, especially if we are talking about a process involving various stages of non-living precursors.

The idea that biogenesis is this hard and fast rule absolutely prohibiting the origin of life from non-life is a misunderstanding of the concept.

Bio can be broadly defined as life from life. It prevents life from exclusive nonlife no matter the source. It can't happen absent a living source. It is blind faith. Akin to asserting the Earth was flat and somehow became a sphere. There is no evidence, no precedent. Not one thing in the present to retrodict to the past.

 

[bhsmte]

You win TGM,

For those who are a little slow to catch on.. you win, I have no answer for you.

I think most knew that already.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I think most knew that already.

Well aren't we on the ball today...no brainer.

 

[pitabread]

Bio can be broadly defined as life from life. It prevents life from exclusive nonlife no matter the source.

No, this is not what biogenesis refers to. While biogenesis does refer to life from other life, there is nothing strictly prohibiting life from arising from non-life. Most of what has been disproved was the idea of spontaneous generation; which again, is the idea of fully formed modern organisms just appearing from non-living sources.

However, there is nothing strictly precluding life arising from non-living sources. In fact, we know that life must have arisen from non-living sources since life on this planet does not appear to have always been here. At some point it had to come from somewhere.