Intelligent Design - can it even be called science? (*moved thread*)

[Ukrainia]

A philosophy of science question: Intelligent Design

Hey, I know there is a section on here that deals more with philosophy/science than the singles section (ok, the singles section doesn’t deal with philosophy or science at all) but there are many people here with many interests so I’m posting it here. I’m obviously a Christian, and I do believe God created us, and all things. Other people who believe similarly believe in intelligent design as a view that has scientific potential. By this I mean many scientists who believe in intelligent design believe they can find evidence of a designer through the scientific method.

One of the main analogies that intelligent design proponents have used is the watch analogy. The idea is if a man is walking in the woods and comes upon a watch, the watch has certain characteristics that make it apparent that the watch was created by a person (an intelligent designer). Similarly, humans (and all life) are very complex and therefore also must have been created by an intelligent designer. Here’s the basic logic behind it.

1. A watch is complex.
2. A watch has an intelligent designer.
3. Life is complex.
4. Therefore, life also has an intelligent designer.

Personally, one problem I’ve always had with intelligent design (obviously I believe God created everything, I just don’t believe there a very good scientific argument to show this – or at least I haven’t seen one) is the fact that there would be no point of comparison with anything not designed.

Here’s what I mean. Basically, the watch idea works because we know that there are things created by humans and there are things not created by humans. If some alien life form came to earth and really studied human things made by humans, it would theoretically be able to differentiate human made stuff like a watch, from non-human made stuff like a stone. However, since God has created everything, we can’t say a living creature looks like it was created because when you look at a non-created thing like a stone they are different. No, they’re both created. Or if for instance if we believed God only created the earth, and the rest of the universe was not created, one could create tests to see if there is an actual material difference. But since everything is created by God it is all intelligently designed material so determining what’s intelligently designed isn’t feasible – there is just nothing that is not created to compare it to.

I don’t see how one could test to see if something is intelligently designed if every single thing in the universe is intelligently designed.

Therefore, since there is no way to test intelligent design, even theoretically, it cannot be considered science.

Is my thinking off? Am I thinking about intelligent design all wrong? If intelligent design had some serious science supporting it, I would have no problem accepting it. However, it doesn’t matter to me too much. My Christianity is based off of my faith, and has nothing to do with science experiments. Still, intelligent design is intriguing.

 

[trentlogain2]

*blind post*

One of the problems I have with evolution is that a lot of evil ideas have been sprung from it. Everything from abortion to eugenics. That's all I want to say about that.

 

[Ukrainia]

*blind post*

One of the problems I have with evolution is that a lot of evil ideas have been sprung from it. Everything from abortion to eugenics. That's all I want to say about that.

I think evolution is highly plausible. I also think it's a difficult area that many Christians struggle with. I go to a Christian college. The professor I have for a science class said he has studied evolution as much as possibly. Considering he's a geneticist, he would have had multiple classes on evolution anyways, but he's went above and beyond what is normal and driven hours to hear leading evolutionary researchers, and has read everything he could get his hands on, on the subject. For all intensive purposes he's an expert himself.

He's also, I believe, a pastor's son, and someone for whom faith is truly important in his life - I think I could speak for him saying that his faith is the most important thing in his life. He admits, he does not have all of answers when it comes to how evolution works in conjunction with God's Word.

I think we should take a similar path when we look at science - and this is especially important if someone is planning on going into a science related field. Carefully consider the evidence yourself, and don't take anyone's word for it. Of course, scientists are fallible human being just like anyone else (although there is a huge amount of evidence from many disciplines for evolution). Read a lot on the subject from both sides of the issue - those who believe in evolution and those who don't.

That said, it might benefit you if you looked at evolution through the eyes of Christian who also believes in evolution. I know it's really helped my knowlege level.

The Language of God by Francis Collins might be a good start.
He's the head of National Institue of Health (which effectively makes him the countries most powerful scientist). And he also has a strong Christian faith.

 

[trentlogain2]

yeah, i'm an uneducated evangelical. i dont see where evolution plays a role in The Bible whatsoever, and like i said before..i see evolution morally rotten.

look though, i'm not going to ruin your thread by continuing to derail it.

 

[Sophrosyne]

ID or intelligent design is more prominent in the study of the universe than in biology and evolution. There are many things about our earth, solar system, and location in the universe type of galaxy that has lead many to think the odds of all these coincidences coming together to be favorable for our planet to exist and life to exist on it point to design perameters as the chances of everything happening are pretty stiff against it all. Evolution is a bandwagon many jump on because it is easy to explain in the broad spectrum of things but it has serious flaws that are ignored and overlooked because of the desire to have some sort of explanation is better than admitting to intelligent design and a creator. I find it extremely interesting that evolution is smarter than the most smartest men that ever existed....

 

[Ukrainia]

ID or intelligent design is more prominent in the study of the universe than in biology and evolution. There are many things about our earth, solar system, and location in the universe type of galaxy that has lead many to think the odds of all these coincidences coming together to be favorable for our planet to exist and life to exist on it point to design perameters as the chances of everything happening are pretty stiff against it all. Evolution is a bandwagon many jump on because it is easy to explain in the broad spectrum of things but it has serious flaws that are ignored and overlooked because of the desire to have some sort of explanation is better than admitting to intelligent design and a creator. I find it extremely interesting that evolution is smarter than the most smartest men that ever existed....

I'm still not sure how a scientist who promotes intelligent design, would develop a testable hypothesis - which is definitely needed in science. I suppose they could they could base it off of something in Genesis...

There are extremely smart people who believe in both evolution and 6000 year old creationism...so I'm sure what your point is there.

 

[Aaliyah]

It doesn't really matter. All that should matter is that you believe in God and Jesus and believe that God created everything. Personally, your post was a little confusing to me but I kind of get what your saying. I don't really like the thing of comparing life to a watch. Anyway, I don't know I just don't really see the point of worrying about it.

 

[Ukrainia]

yeah, i'm an uneducated evangelical. i dont see where evolution plays a role in The Bible whatsoever, and like i said before..i see evolution morally rotten.

look though, i'm not going to ruin your thread by continuing to derail it.

I guess I did assume you haven't read much on evolution (but I've read very little myself, and that's something I aim to change), but I definitely didn't mean to imply you're uneducated at all.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I'm still not sure how a scientist who promotes intelligent design, would develop a testable hypothesis - which is definitely needed in science. I suppose they could they could base it off of something in Genesis...

There are extremely smart people who believe in both evolution and 6000 year old creationism...so I'm sure what your point is there.

extremely smart people have been conned out of million too. I would like you to test evolution, get out your time machine go back millions of years and find a cog or a dat or something alive that has intermediate dna that is not of any known species... the way evolution states things you would have to find many of them to prove how each individual species changed to another one. There are so many holes in the fossile record that explains away evolution and you would think with a huge amount of species that we would see new ones being made.... not just variations of SAME species but new ones. there is none, nothing but extinctions. evolutionists cannot explain the precambrian explosion it was like evolution for a short time was working harder with less species and now it is not working at all with many more species. To take a single cell orgainism and evolve it into everything on the planet without a brain while the most intelligent man alive cannot even MAKE a simple one celled orgainism AT ALL with all our technology speaks of things not understood. Evolution relies on randomness and errors in DNA or mutations as its driving force so is random mutations smarter than man is? must be.

 

[Teufelhund]

Before attacking an argument you should study it. So research the teleological argument if you intend to be able to discern its validity. But don't oversimplify an opinion an then attack it. That's as bad as creationists suggesting that evolutionists believe that people were direct descendants of monkeys.

 

[Blackguard_]

Intelligent Design is not science. Even if it's correct it's not science.

Therefore, since there is no way to test intelligent design, even theoretically, it cannot be considered science.

Right.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Before attacking an argument you should study it. So research the teleological argument if you intend to be able to discern its validity. But don't oversimplify an opinion an then attack it. That's as bad as creationists suggesting that evolutionists believe that people were direct descendants of monkeys.

exactly. ID doesn't say that God did it but it does say that random chance and uphill beneficial (only, not detrimental) mutations caused everything to exist. I don't buy it myself. I have seen the odds of winning the lottery and would never bet that man could ever evolve without some intelligent force driving things, I don't believe in evolution (macro) period.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Intelligent Design is not science. Even if it's correct it's not science.



Right.

ID is a theory and theories are part of science therefore it is just as much science as the theory of evolution.

 

[K9_Trainer]

I haven't studied ID much in depth, but from what I can tell, it practically rejects some of the rules of heredity if your applying it biologically.

Chromosomes come in pairs, but reproductive cells (sperm and eggs) only contain half the total number of chromosomes because they fuse together to make a whole set. There's quite a number of different gene pairing possibilities, giving the offspring different traits, and they all have an equal possibility of occurring each time an offspring is produced. Its basically random; we can't control that.

Then for evolution, the selection part comes from the environment. A brown rabbit living in a mostly snowy area is no good. Nor is a white rabbit living in a desert. Clearly the brown rabbit in the desert has a better chance of survival than a white one, so the trait for brown fur is the one thats gonna be getting passed on.

This kind of microevolution can be observed, and you can enter the numbers in a computer simulation and get numerical data too.

But your right, theres absolutely no way to prove intelligent design. There's no way to even test for it.

If ID does accept all the rules of heredity, then is God supposed to be working to select traits by means of the environment? IE, using the environment as a tool? Because then its not ID, its theistic evolution. We know too much about genetics and heredity to make claims like only the brown fur trait in rabbits shows up in jackrabbits because of some outside cause that has something to do WITH the environment. It also makes no sense that sometimes, you DO get an occasional mutation. Is that a "mistake"? Can't be, God doesn't make mistakes.

 

[Ukrainia]

Before attacking an argument you should study it. So research the teleological argument if you intend to be able to discern its validity. But don't oversimplify an opinion an then attack it. That's as bad as creationists suggesting that evolutionists believe that people were direct descendants of monkeys.

I know almost nothing about the teleological argument, I admit. However, isn't that more of a philosophical argument for God, than a scientific argument?

I'm asking if ID can be considered good science. I already know it has poked holes in evolutionary theory, and has produced some really interesting philosophy.

 

[Ukrainia]

exactly. ID doesn't say that God did it but it does say that random chance and uphill beneficial (only, not detrimental) mutations caused everything to exist. I don't buy it myself. I have seen the odds of winning the lottery and would never bet that man could ever evolve without some intelligent force driving things, I don't believe in evolution (macro) period.

But if I were to believe in evolution (I'm leaning towards it heavily), it would be with God directing every aspect of it so the lottery analogy does not apply to this.

By the way, some of the best evolutionary thinkers are Christian.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I haven't studied ID much in depth, but from what I can tell, it practically rejects some of the rules of heredity if your applying it biologically.

Chromosomes come in pairs, but reproductive cells (sperm and eggs) only contain half the total number of chromosomes because they fuse together to make a whole set. There's quite a number of different gene pairing possibilities, giving the offspring different traits, and they all have an equal possibility of occurring each time an offspring is produced. Its basically random; we can't control that.

Then for evolution, the selection part comes from the environment. A brown rabbit living in a mostly snowy area is no good. Nor is a white rabbit living in a desert. Clearly the brown rabbit in the desert has a better chance of survival than a white one, so the trait for brown fur is the one thats gonna be getting passed on.

This kind of microevolution can be observed, and you can enter the numbers in a computer simulation and get numerical data too.

But your right, theres absolutely no way to prove intelligent design. There's no way to even test for it.

If ID does accept all the rules of heredity, then is God supposed to be working to select traits by means of the environment? IE, using the environment as a tool? Because then its not ID, its theistic evolution. We know too much about genetics and heredity to make claims like only the brown fur trait in rabbits shows up in jackrabbits because of some outside cause that has something to do WITH the environment. It also makes no sense that sometimes, you DO get an occasional mutation. Is that a "mistake"? Can't be, God doesn't make mistakes.

you think God couldn't design things to genetically do what they do? ID in fact is most agreeable with adaptation within a species, some proponents of ID can even consider evolution is by design, or species are programmed to evolve against the odds of detrimental mutations which IMO should be astronomically higher than beneficial mutations.

 

[Sophrosyne]

But if I were to believe in evolution (I'm leaning towards it heavily), it would be with God directing every aspect of it so the lottery analogy does not apply to this.

By the way, some of the best evolutionary thinkers are Christian.

either evolution works on its own..... or it fails. either it has no external intelligence from start to finish or it needs intelligence IN ITS DESIGN.... so by your own words you are leaning towards ID.

 

[K9_Trainer]

The point is, can we PROVE that God is doing it? If you try to involve God, you're crossing the line into including personal beliefs. Thats not science.

As it stands, scientifically, its happening by itself.

 

[Ukrainia]

If ID does accept all the rules of heredity, then is God supposed to be working to select traits by means of the environment? IE, using the environment as a tool? Because then its not ID, its theistic evolution. We know too much about genetics and heredity to make claims like only the brown fur trait in rabbits shows up in jackrabbits because of some outside cause that has something to do WITH the environment. It also makes no sense that sometimes, you DO get an occasional mutation. Is that a "mistake"? Can't be, God doesn't make mistakes.

I believe God can use any means to do whatever he wants. I agree, God doesn't make mistakes. However, he can use human mistakes to his purpose. I think the best example of this is the Cross. Jesus died because humans are rotton sinners, yet he turned the death of the cross - of one of the most gruesome events in history - into the most amazing example of grace and love. I think he can use the environment in a similar way.