The Point of Intelligent Design as a Theory

[Anguspure]

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" Stephen Meyer

ID concerns the invention of biological novelties, including biogenesis as well as later features that appear in the biological record without antecedant. (Evolution: Still a theory in Crisis, Michael Denton)

ID does not deny Darwinian evolution where this has demonstrably occured (The Edge of Evolution, Michael Behe).

ID makes no commitment nor identification of the nature or identity of the designer. (Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer)

ID is compatible with Atheistic conclusions (Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, Thomas Nagel)

 

[Nithavela]

It's not a theory.

 

[Dirk1540]

Sorry but I can't help but have different categories...basically eternal nothingness, or eternal somethingness, or eternal organization, or eternal disarray. Why can't evolution also be called ID? It is actually a super intelligent organization of design for living organisms. Is this just an argument over semantics?

 

[Anguspure]

Sorry but I can't help but have different categories...basically eternal nothingness, or eternal somethingness, or eternal organization, and eternal disarray. Why can't evolution also be called ID? It is actually a super intelligent organization of design for living organisms. Is this just an argument over semantics?

There is a diistinction between designing intelligence and boot strap pulling.

 

[Dirk1540]

What do you mean by boot strap pulling? I simply don't believe an infinite regress makes any sense. Nor do I believe that cohesion can 'Pop' out of disarray. I think reality itself is simply super intelligent and non-intelligence has never existed.

 

[Anguspure]

It's not a theory.

As formulated by those who put the theory forward, it is elegant, testable and tested, falsifiable, descriptive, has predictive and explanatory power, and therefore meets the normal criteri of a theory.

 

[Anguspure]

What do you mean by boot strap pulling? I simply don't believe an infinite regress makes any sense. Nor do I believe that cohesion can 'Pop' out of disarray. I think reality itself is simply super intelligent and non-intelligence has never existed.

None of this makes a whole lot of difference to ID anyway. Either way a designing intelligence is the best explanation for inventive design.

 

[Dirk1540]

None of this makes a whole lot of difference to ID anyway. Either way a designing intelligence is the best explanation for inventive design.

I would instead say that intelligence itself is simply baked into the cake of ultimate reality. Hence why I wonder if this is just an argument over semantics.

 

[Anguspure]

I would instead say that intelligence itself is simply baked into the cake of ultimate reality. Hence why I wonder if this is just an argument over semantics.

A design is always a distinct thing from a designer. Nothing that begins to exist designs itself.

 

[Dirk1540]

But a super impressive design of any kind makes no sense coming out of an ultimate reality that lacks impressive design. So if we simply move the entire question back to the ultimate beginning it's simply a question of "Is reality itself intelligent or not?" Since we all know that it obviously is, this is why I doubt that anyone at all actually really believes that 'God' doesn't exist, if 'God' simply means eternal somethingness. Basically the God of the philosophers.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As formulated by those who put the theory forward, it is elegant, testable and tested, falsifiable, descriptive, has predictive and explanatory power, and therefore meets the normal criteri of a theory.

Wrong on every level.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As formulated by those who put the theory forward, it is elegant, testable and tested, falsifiable, descriptive, has predictive and explanatory power, and therefore meets the normal criteri of a theory.

Please explain every single one of these things.
How is it testable?
How is it falsifiable?
How is it predictive?

And while you're at it, explain how the methodology works. By what method can we determine if an object was "designed" or not.

 

[Anguspure]

But a super impressive design of any kind makes no sense coming out of an ultimate reality that lacks impressive design. So if we simply move the entire question back to the ultimate beginning it's simply a question of "Is reality itself intelligent or not?" Since we all know that it obviously is, this is why I doubt that anyone at all actually really believes that 'God' doesn't exist, if 'God' simply means eternal somethingness. Basically the God of the philosophers.

ID doesn't address this issue anyway. On ID the designer could be space aliens, could be Slarty Bartfast or could be the Divine.
The theory simply proposes a recognition of intelligent design where it may be found.

 

[DogmaHunter]

ID doesn't address this issue anyway. On ID the designer could be space aliens, could be Slarty Bartfast or could be the Divine.

Funny though, how all cdesign proponentsists also seem to be fundamentalist christians.

The theory simply proposes a recognition of intelligent design where it may be found.

How does it do that?

 

[Dirk1540]

On ID the designer could be space aliens, could be Slarty Bartfast or could be the Divine.
The theory simply proposes a recognition of intelligent design where it may be found.

No I am thinking in terms of necessary being vs contingent being, so that would only leave the uncaused necessary being as the candidate. Don’t get me wrong yes I understand that an advanced alien may hypothetically be OUR cause...but I think that the intelligence in reality itself demands an uncaused necessary being, and that necessary being would be that alien’s cause...and anything prior to that alien as well (between the alien and the necessary being).

 

[Anguspure]

Please explain every single one of these things.
How is it testable?

The theory proposes that design is the best explanation for certain features. A test of the theory involves investigation as to whether a designer could possibly produce the observed effect, and comparing that with plausible alternative explanations for feasability.

How is it falsifiable?

If a better explanation for the certain features of the universe that are currently best explained by intellugent design, is proposed then ID would no longer be the best explanation.

How is it predictive?

Among other things it predicts that the universe will be comprehensible to intelligent creatures.

And while you're at it, explain how the methodology works. By what method can we determine if an object was "designed" or not.

The recognition of high level functional coherence as being an exclusive feature of designed systems provides a method of indentifying design. (Undeniable, Douglas Axe)

 

[Anguspure]

Funny though, how all cdesign proponentsists also seem to be fundamentalist christians.

Mostly due to mis-characterisation and apriori commitments to the competing view.

How does it do that?

By recognising design where it appears and instead of writing it off as a trick of anthropic perception, recognising it for what it appears to be.

 

[AV1611VET]

Intelligent Design can take a hike.

If this universe was designed to fall apart, erode, crack, bend, mutilate, burn, explode, crumble to dust, or whatever, I'd say the designer has a problem.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A test of the theory involves investigation as to whether a designer could possibly produce the observed effect, and comparing that with plausible alternative explanations for feasability.

To be able to do that, you would first have to know who the designer is and what that designer is capable of doing. Did this happen? How was it established who the designer is?

As for the second point of "comparing with alternative explanations", that seems to imply that you'll go with "designed" if such alternative isn't known. Which would turn the entire thing into an argument from ignorance.

To conclude: what you propose here as "testable", in reality isn't testable at all.
It's an argument from ignorance.

If a better explanation for the certain features of the universe that are currently best explained by intellugent design, is proposed then ID would no longer be the best explanation.

1. you still haven't explained HOW ID supposedly "best explains" such features, nore have you given any methodology by which this can be established. So, you're just claiming that this is the case.

2. Again you are refering to "alternatives", which again shows the argument from ignorance.

3. we have such an alternative. It's called Evolution Theory.

Among other things it predicts that the universe will be comprehensible to intelligent creatures.

That's not a proper prediction, since it doesn't lead to exclusivity of the idea it supposedly flows from.

Also, I don't see how this prediction flows from it.
Why wouldn't a designer be able to create a system that is incomprehensible for the creature it creates?

So please try again. Give another prediction. This isn't the only prediction it makes, I hope?

The recognition of high level functional coherence as being an exclusive feature of designed systems provides a method of indentifying design. (Undeniable, Douglas Axe)

How is that measured? What is the unit?
And what is the "critical mass"? As in, when is "high level functional coherence" high enough to determine design?

Also, define "high level functional coherence".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Mostly due to mis-characterisation and apriori commitments to the competing view.

No, that's a factual observation that they are all fundamentalist theists, especially christian.
The term cdesign proponentsists, furthermore, is not a "mis-characterisation" or invention or whatever.... it comes straight out of so-called ID textbooks, which has been presented as evidence that ID is just creationism disguised in a lab coat.

And then there's also the leaked wedge document for the discovery institute, which flat out states that ID is to be used as a Trojan horse to get the bible into science classes.

And let's not even start talking about how Behe, under oath, admitted that in order to call ID a "scientific theory", they had to redefine what "scientific theory" means and that by doing so, astrology also qualifies as a "scientific theory". You know... horoscopes and stuff.

By recognising design where it appears and instead of writing it off as a trick of anthropic perception, recognising it for what it appears to be.

You still haven't properly explained how design is recognised in context of ID.