Is Intelligent Design Scientific Theory? (1 Viewer)

[reclusivemonkey]

Pretty simple, as the title states.

Is Intelligent Design scientific theory?

Discuss.

 

[Ron_dK]

Choose whatever is appropriate :

1. Intelligent Design Deism (IDD): the conception that god has made the world and afterwards no longer has interfered itself;
2. Intelligent Design Theism (IDT): the conception that god has made the world and afterwards still has intervened by creating living
3. Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC): the conception which the serious god is the god from the old will.

( As translated form a Dutch footnote )

 

[reclusivemonkey]

I think something must of got lost in the translation there...

 

[Kraj]

This was the easiest poll decision I've ever made: an emphatic "No!" I'll elaborate more later.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

Yeah, I must admit Kraj, it wasn't a very sporting question ;-)

Its just been on the telly and my girlfriend was fed up of me shouting at it and told me to go argue with someone else...

 

[Kraj]

Lol! Well just because the answer is obvious to me and you doesn't mean the topic is not worth talking about. But let me just say this: 'Intelligent Design' needs a new name. The very definition of "design" requires input from a sentient source, design cannot happen by random, otherwise it's not a design. Therefore, the term "intelligent design" is redundant and stupid.

BTW, this should probably be in the Politics & Current Events forum.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

BTW, this should probably be in the Politics & Current Events forum.

True. Someone complained there were no good debates in the Watercooler any more, so I thought I would start one off. I am sure it will be moved if needed

 

[Friday]

Oh My God.

I live in Kansas, home of the most backward thinking State School Board ever assembled anywhere. They just recently made national news with their backward concept of evolution. Intelligent Design is right up there with McCarthyism as far as I'm concerned. I have more respect for UFO-ologists than these people.

 

[Friday]

Using the same logical thought processes:

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

Check this out

 

[commandolomo]

I too watched the Horizon programme last night, and was impressed at how restrained Horizon was, giving both sides an equal exploration......before (rightfully) shooting "Intelligent Design" down to the ground!

For me, the most important part of the debate was the fundamental issue of (un)Intelligent Design itself. Proponents of the theory base, for the most part, their attack on the scientific principles of Darwinism and evolutionary theory, and that as there can only be limited scientific experiment of the principles and assumptions of the theory, it is fundamentally weak. Intelligent design scientists argue (forgive the simplified version ) that even the most basic bacteria is complex, and the nature of it’s design means that it’s sheer complexity is mathematically impossible to occur at random. Ergo, a higher power must have had a hand in designing even the smallest bacteria, as it takes intelligence to engineer such complex organisms

So, the attack on evolutionary theory is based on the scientifically (sic) untestable principles of the theory – the intelligent design response? A supernatural power designs life!!!!! Only right wing madmen can think through the logic that an attack based on scientific principles is best underpinned by a belief that supernatural powers are responsible for the creation of life! When it came to court, the presiding Judge rightfully saw intelligent design as a smokescreen for religion and God – as the programme said, they lost the battle but the war continues!

I guess the programme prompted further questions for me, concerning (a nice incendiary subject) of Christian fundamentalism – just to get off topic for a moment

How and why is American Christian Fundamentalism spreading, so quickly and so unchecked ?!? In the UK, I would say that the nearest thing to American right-wing Christian fundamentalism would be groups such as the BNP and UKIP – and suffice to say these groups are more concerned with skin colour and culture than strict religious principles. However, the BNP & UKIP are marginalised groups with an extremely small base of activists – with near zero public support.

This is not an anti-American rant nor slur, but a question from a liberal Brit - Is it apathy or ignorance that allows Christian fundamentalism to march on?

 

[reclusivemonkey]

This is not an anti-American rant nor slur, but a question from a liberal Brit - Is it apathy, ignorance or that allows Christian fundamentalism to march on?

Its surprising how fearful America is of Fundamental Muslims, when the Fundamental Christians display exactly the same kind of closed minded ignorance. Have you seen Prof. Dawkins (think that's his name, the Oxford Professor who has no truck with religion) on his "Root of all Evil" programme? Great fun He was the grey haired fella who said that you shouldn't even debate with them, as it gives the impression that they (the intelligent design people) actually have some kind of point.

 

[FoFa]

OK, lets take this one step further. Lets just say our technology was more advanced. Ai is normal (maybe not on the human level, but you get the picture). We create self healing machines, and maintenance bots, etc. (just like the Sci-Fi channel). Now we want to send a few bots to some distant planet for exploration. Yet we have no idea what would be encountered. So we develop the bots so they can change depending on the environment they encounter. makes sense. We also send raw materials so they can build a bot for a specific task depending on the environment that they might not be able to adjust to. Thus we would almost asure a 100% successful mission.
Now lets say we used biological instead of mechanical means. We would also need the same evalutionary processes to give success, no?
Fast Forward a few million years, the biological life has evolved, many different species exist from that one start we sent. If intellegent life evolved, they might also believe in a god. So I put forward evolution is intellegent design. For with out evolving, life ends. Now if you call it God, Nature, Mother Earth, it is still the same.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

No offence, what you say might spark an interesting debate, but it has nothing to do with Intelligent Design. Too many assumptions in what you are suggesting for me to discuss it.

 

[Kraj]

OK, lets take this one step further. Lets just say our technology was more advanced. Ai is normal (maybe not on the human level, but you get the picture). We create self healing machines, and maintenance bots, etc. (just like the Sci-Fi channel). Now we want to send a few bots to some distant planet for exploration. Yet we have no idea what would be encountered. So we develop the bots so they can change depending on the environment they encounter. makes sense. We also send raw materials so they can build a bot for a specific task depending on the environment that they might not be able to adjust to. Thus we would almost asure a 100% successful mission.
Now lets say we used biological instead of mechanical means. We would also need the same evalutionary processes to give success, no?
Fast Forward a few million years, the biological life has evolved, many different species exist from that one start we sent. If intellegent life evolved, they might also believe in a god. So I put forward evolution is intellegent design. For with out evolving, life ends. Now if you call it God, Nature, Mother Earth, it is still the same.

OK...you've got some logic holes to fill here. 1.) Assuming what you've described is possible, it doesn't show evolution is intelligent design, it shows evolution might be intelligent design. If you want to make the jump from 'might be' to 'is', you need to explain more. 2.) The scenario does not explain design as it is used in the intelligent design argument. In your scenario, the evolutionary process is set in motion without any intended conclusion (meaning, no one knows what might evolve after we send organisms to another planet) whereas intelligent design would have you believe all the universe is in the precise state it was intended to be by God when he set it in motion. If you want to make the connection between the two scenarios, you need to explain more.

BTW, I have two main problems with Intelligent Design as a science. 1.) As far as I know, it does not provide any testable hypothesis. A true science makes an observation, offers an explaination, and tests that explanation to see if it holds true. ID does not do this and, therefore, is not a science. 2.) ID's arguments, as far as I know, consists entirely of finding examples where scientific explanation falls short. It does not offer its own explanations that contribute anything to human knowledge, it simply attributes science's shortcomings to divine intervention. That is not science.

 

[KenHigg]

So is intelligent design all about teaching religious assertions in public schools?

 

[Kraj]

So is intelligent design all about teaching religious assertions in public schools?

More or less. On a personal level, it is a valid spiritual pursuit to attempt to reconcile one's beliefs with science, but the intense push to have it taught in schools is (in my opinion) a transparent attempt to establish a religious belief in the curriculum.

 

[KenHigg]

More or less. On a personal level, it is a valid spiritual pursuit to attempt to reconcile one's beliefs with science, but the intense push to have it taught in schools is (in my opinion) a transparent attempt to establish a religious belief in the curriculum.

Wouldn't one think the ones pursuing this would be concerned about other religious sectors wanting their precepts in the curriculum thereby watering down their own?

 

[dt01pqt]

To be a theory you have to try and explain how it could be so. ID says how is unexplainable. How can you test something that is unexplainable?

See there is nothing wrong with criticising Darwinian Theory even its supporters acknowledge that 'survival of the fittest' is more complex than once thought. But saying there are problems with a particular theory doesn't make that theory false or make your theory true.

 

[Kraj]

Wouldn't one think the ones pursuing this would be concerned about other religious sectors wanting their precepts in the curriculum thereby watering down their own?

I think that's a door they risk opening, yes.

BTW, reclusivemonkey (and anyone else who's interested), for the record I believe in God and I believe God created the universe and life as we know it via the processes we have scientifically discovered. What I don't believe is that my personal belief can be proven or disproven, or that my belief has anything to do with science.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

So is intelligent design all about teaching religious assertions in public schools?

Nope. Intelligent Design is a specific theory. It has been put forward as a Scientific theory which states that the designs in nature are too complex to not be created by intelligence, or by design. The main underpinning of this theory was on the flagellum (not sure of the spelling of this) of a small organism (bacteria I think, my biology is not good), used to propel the organism. There were many parts to this, so many (say the Intelligent Theorists), that it could not have developed on its own through evolution. No single part or group of parts could possibly have a function, only all the sum of the parts together (there were over a hundred I think). This is wrong, and has been proved to be wrong through scientific method; inside the flagellum is a simple "syringe", which of course completely debunks the theory. Q.E.D.

In an indirect way, what you say could be right. However, when you state something as scientific fact, you must adhere to the rules of science, and when scientific method debunks your hypothesis, you need to take it on the chin ;-)