E. O. Wilson on ID

_{William Dembski

November 26, 2007

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here’s what E. O. Wilson writes in THE NEW SCIENTIST:

. . . Many who accept the fact of evolution cannot, however, on religious grounds, accept the operation of blind chance and the absence of divine purpose implicit in natural selection. They support the alternative explanation of intelligent design. The reasoning they offer is not based on evidence but on the lack of it. The formulation of intelligent design is a default argument advanced in support of a non sequitur. It is in essence the following: there are some phenomena that have not yet been explained and that (most importantly) the critics personally cannot imagine being explained; therefore there must be a supernatural designer at work. The designer is seldom specified, but in the canon of intelligent design it is most certainly not Satan and his angels, nor any god or gods conspicuously different from those accepted in the believer’s faith.

Flipping the scientific argument upside down, the intelligent designers join the strict creationists (who insist that no evolution ever occurred) by arguing that scientists resist the supernatural theory because it is counter to their own personal secular beliefs. This may have a kernel of truth; everybody suffers from some amount of bias. But in this case bias is easily overcome. The critics forget how the reward system in science works. Any researcher who can prove the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame. They will prove at last that science and religious dogma are compatible. Even a combined Nobel prize and Templeton prize (the latter designed to encourage the search for just such harmony) would fall short as proper recognition. Every scientist would like to accomplish such a epoch-making advance. But no one has even come close, because unfortunately there is no evidence, no theory and no criteria for proof that even marginally might pass for science. . . .

Two comments:

(1) ID does not argue from “Shucks, I can’t imagine how material mechanisms could have brought about a biological structure” to “Gee, therefore God must have done it.” This is a strawman. Here is the argument ID proponents actually make:

Premise 1: Certain biological systems have some diagnostic feature, be it IC (irreducible complexity) or SC (specified complexity) or OC (organized complexity) etc.
Premise 2: Materialistic explanations have been spectacularly unsuccessful in explaining such systems — we have no positive evidence for thinking that material mechanisms can generate them.
Premise 3: Intelligent agency is known to have the causal power to produce systems that display IC/SC/OC.
Conclusion: Therefore, biological systems that exhibit IC/SC/OC are likely to be designed.

(2) Wilson’s claim that proving “the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame” is disingenuous. The accepted framework of science precludes ID from the start. Wilson and his materialistic colleagues have stacked the deck so that no evidence could ever support it.

Comments

If someone had proof of a designer, to whom or to where would they submit it for review?
The world, via any method possible. And to further my previous comment (97)- 6-Intelligent Design is about the design, not the designer(s) (duh). 7-If we knew the designer(s) then we wouldn't be reaching a design inference, design would be a given. 8-IDists do ask the questions such as "who, when, why, where, how". We just understand reality- REALITY demonstrates that the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question. That is how every design-centric venue approaches it- Stonehenge- design determined and decades of research to come to the understanding we currently have. Nasca, Peru- same thing.Joseph_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

If someone had proof of a designer, to whom or to where would they submit it for review?John Kelly_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, post 95 Thanks for your post. I’m not quite sure what you are saying. Information and intelligence clearly do have their own properties, but are you suggesting that they exist of themselves, in some sort of metaphysical state, floating around, waiting to be adopted (or perhaps arranging to be)? Does that mean that the information held by the 99% of species that are now extinct continues to exist somewhere? Or that the successor to the internal combustion engine already exists as an ‘intelligence’ of some form, it’s just nobody’s picked it up yet? If so, I really can’t agree with you. Intelligence and information in relation to living things may not be physical concepts, but they are always consequential of a material agent. In any case, what Dr Dembski describes in Premise 2 surely IS a materialistic intelligence? What you are describing is his conclusion.duncan_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

1-ID doesn't say anything about the supernatural. 2- ALL scenarios lead to something beyond nature- even the anti-ID materialistic scenario. 3- Science is ONLY concerned with the reality behind the existence of that which is being investigated. If the data, evidence and observation suggest the supernatural then so be it. 4- REALITY demonstrates that the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question. 5- ID does not require a belief in "God" so therefore one can be an atheist and an IDist. and please read the following: The design hypothesis, complete with predictions, potential falsifications and confirmations.Joseph_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

For the ID idea to be compatible with atheism or science it would have to rule out a supernatural agency as the designer. As long as the possibility of a supernatural designer exists within the ID framework it cannot be considered a scientific proposition no matter how many folks believe it is -- the best one could say right now is that it maybe a scientific idea pending further research. If folks want to rule in a supernatural designer then they need to come up with a supernaturalistic methodology that can examine supernatural phenomenon in the same way that the scientific method is used to examine natural phenomenon. Ideally, to further the idea as a scientific proposition, ID proponents should be working hard to pinpoint the designer, or at least rule out a supernatural designer, since he/she/it is the key to the whole concept. Failing that, at minimum I'd expect them to be working to prove that the tools they use to identify biological structures that are supposedly too complex to have evolved can distinguish between apparent design and real design. Nobody seems to be pursuing active research in either of these areas although if I've missed something I'd be very grateful if someone can point me in the direction of any published papers on those subjects. There seems to be a lot of research that could be done to prove or disprove ID beyond doubt, however, there doesn't seem to be much research going on at all. Instead, it seems like the ID movement expects their idea to be immediately elevated to the status of scientific theory -- which given the research done to date is a fantasy! -- and to overturn the dominant theory by simply critiquing evolutionary mechanisms (which is a good thing and done by evolutionary biologists all the time) or setting up PR machines to claim their "theory" is being suppressed by the "establishment." This all smacks of hyperbolic propoganda aimed more at establishing credibility amongst the masses rather than gaining support amongst scientists by conducting scientifically valid (i.e., exploring natural causes) research. It strikes me as very odd that the folks critiquing evolutionary theory on this blog and in the comments are not applying the same level of critical thinking to the embryonic idea of ID. Instead, the thinking seems to be we perceive holes in evolution and question those, but we're not going to question any holes in ID. Instead, we're simply going to state that ID trumps evolution because of the holes we've picked in evolution. That is a negative argument and not how scientific understanding grows. Why isn't anyone asking and answering questions like: Who is the designer? If we're so complex that we need a designer who designed the designer? How does he/she/it design and build things? Why did it take billions of years to do? Why weren't we designed straight away? What predictions does the theory make? How can it's finding be used to benefit humankind?Jorvicman_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Duncan, in 40:
‘MATERIALISTIC Intelligent agency …..”? . . . . if we want to say that materialistic explanations aren’t up to the job (cf: Premise 2) then how can we rely on explanations dependent upon materialism to support our case?
It seems no-one has answered you specifically. One key problem with your remark is that information is a major characteristic product of intelligence. Information's properties are radically different from those of matter-energy, as a moment's thought will show; e.g. voltages are high/low, information values are true/false etc - i.e to move from physical signal to informational data you need a code [or at least a modulation] which is in all observed cases where we directly see the causal process an expression of a mind, and constitutes an essentially conventional assignment of values to meanings. Similarly, no neuronal discharge is right/wrong, true/false -- and reducing mind to neuronal networks ends up in hopeless incoherence. The same information (for all practical purposes), can be in many locations at the same time. And much more. In short, there is no good reason to infer on the evidence we have, that materiality is an essential component of either information or intelligent agency. So, absent begging a major metaphysical question, imposing MATERIALISTIC is not correct. Further to this, there is a considerable body of evidence across time and space for the reality of non-material agency. Last but not least, evolutionary materialism is essentially and inescapably self-referentially inconsistent, once it has to address the credibility of the minds we have to use to think materialistic thoughts. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

Frost122585 – post 66 Thanks for your response. I don’t mean to dismiss your post, but I’m afraid I don’t think you’ve read Dr Dembski’s statement properly. Have another look, especially at: - “(1) ID does not argue from “Shucks, I can’t imagine how material mechanisms could have brought about a biological structure” to “Gee, therefore God must have done it.” This is a strawman.” Both Dr Dembski and DaveScot have specifically said on other posts on UD that the fact that humans have proved able to, for example, manipulate living cells, is proof positive that intelligent design – of some sort, at least - is a reality. I think that this statement, in itself, is self-evidently true. But my question is, what is the basis by which we can stretch it to apply beyond a materialistic application to a non-materialistic one?duncan_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

so my view is that atheism barely can cling on to the theory of ID as a whole. But most would reject it. Nonetheless, ID is atheist compatible. In about the same way windows 95 is compatible to the latest War Craft. :PFrost122585_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT}

I don’t agree with your definitions. Atheists think there is no God and from this view look at evidence skeptically. Agnostics don’t care but don’t believe because most religions don’t have enough physical evidence to deserve belief. As far as overlap the bell curve applies to everything but atheists don’t believe in god at all and really don’t even regard the idea as possible. Agnostics are willing to weigh the facts and are open minded but don’t see the light yet. As for the face on mars I think an atheist would lean towards no way is that the result of a civilization because there was no other civilizations. But an agnostic might say well it looks like a face maybe it is well have to see more evidence first though. Atheism is a bias and it usually applies to God so these terms don’t work as well for physical alien design. I agree with you that atheism is compatible with ID but only as long as it is aliens or material intelligent design. The problem is that no free lunch then says that the aliens to be designed due tot heir specified complexity. This requires either a god like being or designer that transcends the physical world or a natural intelligence that it built into the world as Aristotle thought. The first is unacceptable to all atheists the seconded would push most atheists to the edge of their philosophical position. This is what ID holds. Dembski's theory of sc applies to al things even the aliens. So if you use it to infer alien design you must then assume design of the aliens because they would most likely be very specified and complex. Basically there is only one view point that rules out ID and that is a philosophical belief that is called methodological materialism. What this says is that everything must be caused by physical processes that are not intelligent. This is a ridiculous stance because is excludes intelligence for no reason except on the grounds that all causes must be empirical. This doesn’t apply to gravitation theory or dark matter but sense they are within the universe its ok to the methodological materialists. ID says that there is another element in the universe called intelligence which is comprised of information. The bottom line is that information trumps matter for ID advocates. This is why an alien design can be detected and why our government enacted SETI. But some atheists will reject the possibility of aliens being designed by an intelligent cause that transcends matter. In other words the idea that evolution is guided by some form of information that has an as yet unknown cause would be rejected. But this is what ID says and looks for with SC. ID can purchase an inference of alien intelligence just fine but if you believe in the theory you have to believe in the possibility of a higher intelligence outside of physical matter. If you reject the second part you are just cherry picking and are probably an atheist methodological materialist. If you accept the second part you are either agnostic, believer, or atheist who believes the cause is an intelligent cause that is natural. Basically an intelligence that is natural never had personal interest in the world or is just a set of intelligent physical laws that create SC as the prime reality and as we are unable to study this it is not open to scientific scrutiny as to whether it was or was not intelligently designed. This would be a natural intelligence. That an athiest could beleive in. It would be like saying I think the world is more like a great thought than a random mess.Frost122585_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT}

Just to slip hairs yes most do. It is agnostic who say “show me evidence and ill take it in consideration very seriously.”
Well, we could debate the meanings of atheist and agnostic all night, but suffice to say that two of the most well known, militant and outspoken atheists (Dawkins and Hitchens) will tell you that they cannot completely rule out the existence of a deity. One would have to have God-like powers in order to rule it out. The main difference between agnostics and atheists is the degree to which they accept there could be a God. Agnostics think that it is possible, even probable, atheists, on the whole, think it is highly unlikely. (e.g. it's possible the Face on Mars is an alien artifact, but you'd better show me some pretty darn good evidence before I am willing to believe it). It's really two different regions on the same thread of disbelief, and I think you will find there is a great deal of overlap between the two camps.tyke_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

tyke-Only those few atheists who believe we are alone in the universe, and they have no hard evidence upon which to base that assertion. Well the problem is that they would put the burden of proof on the ID proponents and not accept evidence until the fact is proven- but this is not sicence. Also I accept the natural definiiton of supernatural and would consider some unfathomable advanced alien technolnogy as supernatural if its effects were seen without any prior knowledge of its nature or existence.Frost122585_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

But most atheists don’t rule out the existence of God entirely -Tyke Just to slip hairs yes most do. It is agnostic who say "show me evidence and ill take it in consideration very seriously." Agnostics really are perfect people for ID because they have no prior commitments. As far as your coment about humanists I admit your right but i have never heard anyone say I am a humanist. My point here is that most humanists go under the title atheist due to its more popular acceptibility. So you are correct but I had humanists in mind it is just a term I rarely hear and use. My mistake. I think it would be inteesting to do a poll and see how many athieists are actually humanists and dont know it. Why did you have to complicate everyhting with the word humanist! :)Frost122585_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT}

tyke, i think we basically agree.Frost122585_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT}

And this is the substance of the whole argument of ID. Its ok to be an atheist. There are a lot of good reasons to be one or to reject the bible or other religious doctrines. But if the evidence points to more than just randomness and purposelessness and material causation then we need to stay open minded. ID theorists believe that intelligence accounts for the gaps as well as the evidence of SC and IC. This is why I am sympathetic to the idea. Not because of a prior commitment to God but because I have decided that my experience with Darwinian evolution and the debates and books that I have read have made ID more reasonable and probable due to ID's explanatory power and the lack there of with Darwinian evo. A good atheist would look at the evidence and say you know what maybe your right, i reject God but maybe there is more intelligent causes in this world than humans and maybe they played a role in origins. But a full methodological materialistic atheist will say no, your wrong nothing is capable of designing except human beings which are just the result of purposeless, non-intelligent natural processes. Religious atheists reject the entire idea of intelligence as quantitative. Them its qualitative and subjective like the word beauty or something. s As one can see ID poses a serious threat to reasonable atheists and this is one of the reasons so many people hate the theory and why they call ID proponents CREATIONISTS and ID religion. The fear it because the evidence is coming down against a random purposeless universe where man is at the center. And this is why i get upset when I see Christian fundamentalists going off about Jesus and how ID is just fake form of religion. Both religious fundamentalists and religious atheists ignore and reject the facts of science because they fear a universe that is not exactly the way they want it. Everyone should be able to fallow the facts and decide honestly where they lead.Frost122585_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

To simplify: A liberal Atheist can except ID but a “Religious Atheist” (my term) cannot. Obviously Atheists could fall somewhere between these two extremes as believing in ID a little or barely at all. The point is one has to be able to accept the idea of detectible information transcending matter in some sense and that through this detection a logical inference of ID can be made. However, the problem arises with the reality of ID which points to a higher intelligence (or intelligences), at least in the vernacular sense of “higher”, due to the complexity of SC and IC, and while that intelligence could be material the “higher” part could be controversial for atheists.
I wish I'd seen the simplified version before I replied to you! :) I think that what you're saying is that some atheists do not accept ID is possible. Well, I suspect you are correct, but that does not make them right. It is trivially easy to imagine aliens who are more intelligent than we are, given the endless supply of science fiction aliens we have to hand. It is also very easy to imagine that we are not the first planet upon which an advanced civilization developed, and that they, for whatever reason, decided to design and seed life on other planets. True, it does not solve the problem of where they came from, but the answer to that question is not accessible unless we one day met our alien designers. But then I believe the existence of an infinitely intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient supernatural deity is as equally as vexing and impenetrable, if not more so. The bottom line is that ID is compatible with a materialistic designer, and I think that you will find that most atheists would agree in theory, even if only a few actually believe ID to be a superior theory to evolution.tyke_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT}

To be honest, I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not! It would help if you could break your responses into paragraphs.
You see atheism is a belief system just like Christianity. It makes claims regardless of the evidence.
Well, atheists believe there is no evidence for a God, in particular a God as depicted in the holy books of the world's major religions. But most atheists don't rule out the existence of God entirely. They just think that the evidence is not strong enough to warrant following any religion. It's often said that atheists are just like everyone else except that they believe in one fewer religion than the rest. To me, evidence for Christianity is just as weak as you all think the evidence for Islam, or Bhuddism, or Hinduism is.
Irreducible complexity requires almost a supernatural explanation because all of the natural explanations have failed to account for it.
Yes, but as I said, we are already developing the rudimentary tools to manipulate and, one day, create new life. It's not even "almost supernatural", it's simply a matter of having a mature enough technology.
In Dembski’s book no free lunch he explains that super natural doesn’t mean not natural or outside of nature but just extremely improbable or amazing but intelligent causation due to its incredible power could be excluded by atheists as some form of God.
Well, that's fine, but that's what most people would call "seems to be supernatural". I am using the widely accepted definition. Prayer, miracles, ghosts would all fall under the common definition. Advanced technology would not. We're not there yet, but we probably will be some day.
Atheism can be a form of religion with man at the center of all things.
No. That sounds like Humanism. Not all atheists are Humanists. Atheism is simply belief that there is no supernatural entity worthy of worship. Nothing more, despite what many here will tell you. I certainly don't think that man is at the center of all things. We are a part of nature and, given the vastness of the Universe, a highly insignificant part of it (except to us and our loved ones, of course!)
Whatever the nature of the intelligence is we don’t know and have no way of knowing but some atheists would dismiss the possibility apriori on the grounds that nothing more intelligent exists.
Only those few atheists who believe we are alone in the universe, and they have no hard evidence upon which to base that assertion. (In any case, it is usually Christians who will claim that Man is the pinnacle of God's creation, for the obvious religious reasons.) Either way, ID is theoretically fully compatible with atheism, even if not many atheists actually believe it to be the correct explanation for how we got here.tyke_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

To simplify: A liberal Atheist can except ID but a "Religious Atheist" (my term) cannot. Obviously Atheists could fall somewhere between these two extremes as believing in ID a little or barely at all. The point is one has to be able to accept the idea of detectible information transcending matter in some sense and that through this detection a logical inference of ID can be made. However, the problem arises with the reality of ID which points to a higher intelligence (or intelligences), at least in the vernacular sense of "higher", due to the complexity of SC and IC, and while that intelligence could be material the “higher” part could be controversial for atheists.Frost122585_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

cdesignproponentsists, if you study the theory of ID you will see that it is about evidence and arguments not about God. And it is rediculous to think that Dembski and Behe and the rest know somthing like a smoking gun for God (whatever God you are refering to). If there is more break throughs like Irreducible Complexity or Specified Complexity they will come out as soon as they are formulted for all of the reasons any great sicentific theory is released, money, fame, forwarding science-philosophy etc. Now its possible that they are working on some new theories quietly as to avoide critcism before they finetune their arguments. As for God being the only answer read my post above I talked at length about how Intelligent Design is about detecting Intelligent causeation which could be alien. Most of the evidence for ID in biological such as IC. This is surely with in the reach of ET's. Now as for the orign of those ET's it could just be nature. It would be improbable but its possible. If it was the case there still is a place for ID when it comes to detecting the aliens design in nature say in DNA on earth. Many people think that it could only be God for all kinds of reasons but the fact is that your guess is as good as mine right now.Frost122585_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

I may have not made my point that clear. The point is this, if supernatural intelligence requires something greater than us then some atheists may consider that a God of sorts. It depends on how an atheist defines him/her self. But ID falls under the materialistic sciences in so far as we are able to observe its effects empirically therefore atheists have to rule out logical causes (god or something of the sort) apriori. You see atheism is a belief system just like Christianity. It makes claims regardless of the evidence. That is why i say some atheists would agree with the science of ID and some not. Aliens could be considered super natural especially if they have technology that we cannot fathom. Likewise a unknown intelligence that is natural but built into the world could be considered supernatural. Irreducible complexity requires almost a supernatural explanation because all of the natural explanations have failed to account for it. In Dembski’s book no free lunch he explains that super natural doesn’t mean not natural or outside of nature but just extremely improbable or amazing but intelligent causation due to its incredible power could be excluded by atheists as some form of God. Atheism can be a form of religion with man at the center of all things. I don’t think it is a scam that ID does not require a deity. I think it is the reality of the theory. You just don’t need one. DNA, IC, SC, are all within the realm of alien intervention. Now there are some ID people who argue for fine tuning of the universe. This obviously makes the problem a bit bigger. It is difficult for us to picture a material intelligence that could create a universe but that does not mean one could not exist. It is the concept and the logic of its possibility that counts given the right evidence. Dembski often talks about an intelligence that is built into the universe. This is what Aristotle believed that the world was endowed with teleology. Whatever the nature of the intelligence is we don’t know and have no way of knowing but some atheists would dismiss the possibility apriori on the grounds that nothing more intelligent exists. Think of it this way could a biblical literalist accept evolution if it was against the word of the bible. No. Not even if evolution was proved as scientifically right. This is because literalist Christians already have prior commitments to the nature of origins.Frost122585_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

I have to admit that I agree with (2). If the Discovery Institute publishes its secrets, I'm sure the scientists will have no alternative to award you the Nobel Prize and place you in the history books. I personally think that Professors Dembski and Behe already have startling evidence for God, but are just waiting and seeing how far those bungling naturalistic scientists keep messing around with Chance. Tyke, I hope you're not serious about aliens being the Designers. There's only one logical answer as to what the Designer is. Who designed aliens?cdesignproponentsists_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT}

ID just allows this possibility to be acceptable in the scientific realm through the challenge of IC and SP.
You mean IDists claiming that ID does not require a deity is nothing but a scam to avoid the religious test in American law? Shh! Not sure you really want to say that here! I understand that the word supernatural can be a little fuzzy since anything that happens without an apparent cause can be considered to be supernatural (just as lightning used to be attributed to the Norse god Thor). But I don't get why that rules out atheists from believe that ID is a valid theory. There is nothing in the theory of ID that requires the designer to be supernatural, so any discussion of the meaning of the word is moot. After barely 10,000 years our own civilization is already getting to the stage where we may someday soon be able to construct our own artificial lifeforms from scratch (yeah, maybe we're still 100 or 200 years off still, but that's a blink of a eye in cosmic terms). Just think where we might be after another million years of continued scientific progress, or another 10 million. It's not hard to imagine an advanced alien race using technology within the scope of our scientific understanding to create life on Earth. There is nothing supernatural required, and therefore atheism is perfectly congruent with the possibility of that type of ID. I wrote a short story (unpublished) several years ago on exactly that premise. Humans found the remains of a long dead alien civilization, including a Science Hall of Fame that had a statue holding the representation of a strand of DNA which matched exactly to one found in all lifeforms on Earth (i.e. a copyright or signature). They had found the designer. The funny thing is that I didn't even realize it was an ID-related story until months afterwards!tyke_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

Tyke, I would basically agree except I would say that atheism seems to fall both part outside and inside ID. If you believe that nothing designed the universe and this is your idea of atheism than no you cant believe i ID. Encarta dictionary says atheism mean someone who does not believe in god or deity. The problem is what is the definition of deity which they list as "a god is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings." The problem then arises that you cant not worship this deity and possible cannot think this deity to be holy or divine." But ID allows for a designer that is not holy or divine or worshiped. Example of which is an extraterrestrial intelligence that designed things in the universe that we do not know of yet. Basically its obvious. Even an atheist has to admit the possibility of Design in the universe. Now if its proven ad the designer comes down they can reject the reality in denial. This too would be an atheist. But the possibility is still there. ID just allows this possibility to be acceptable in the scientific realm through the challenge of IC and SP. Also another possibility as laid out by William Dembski is a natural intelligence built in to the universe. In this sense the intelligence is there in the physical realm but no designer is revealed. An atheist can admit that design is detectible but may also at the same time reject the idea of a supernatural designer. The only problem then is the word supernatural. If it means hard to believe- like an alien intelligence that we cant yet realize then its ok. But if it means something that transcends the physical realm that is where atheists reject ID. An agnostic should be perfectly accepting of ID as it is a gateway where by his apathy could be swayed.Frost122585_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

However, ID is not compatible with atheism. One has to look elsewhere than ID to support their particular religious or philosophical beliefs.
Well, given that ID is nothing to do with religion, why would an atheist look towards ID to support his or her beliefs anyway? And ID is absolutely compatible with atheism. How many times do people like Dembski and Behe have to say that ID does not, cannot, identify the designer? Three non-religious possibilities for the identity of a designer: 1) An advanced alien species seeding our planet and, perhaps, even guiding our development by means unknown and unseen. 2) An even more advanced alien species who created our universe in their equivalent of a laboratory having designed all the parameters we now know as the fundamental laws of physics. 3) We are all part of a designed simulation (a la The Matrix) that is indistinguishable from reality, and therefore is, to all intents and purposes, our reality. While there is no doubt that if any of these theories for the identity of a designer is true, there would be supreme theological and religious ramifications, none of the above designers could rightfully be considered a supernatural deity worthy of worship and adoration. While perhaps only (1) is reasonably plausible, none of them can be ruled out by ID. Asserting that the designer is a supernatural entity is a matter of faith, and will likely always remain so.tyke_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

S Wakefield Tolbert, I've seen the nutty stuff floating around about QM, for all I know there could be some truth in the midst of all the garbage, but I still feel that when QM is thoroughly and properly refined, it will yield rich gold for the ID camp. Especially in establishing the fact that information is a thoroughly transcendent entity, Thus answering the primary question for the ID/evo debate, "Where is the information coming from?" for instance this preliminary evidence I've found: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1820354/posts of special note: But whereas in Bell’s test these quantities are derived from the so-called ‘linear’ polarization of the photons — crudely, whether their electromagnetic fields oscillate in one direction or the other — Zeilinger’s experiment looks at a different sort of polarization, called elliptical polarization. Like Bell’s, Zeilinger’s equality proved false. This doesn’t rule out all possible non-local realistic mo^dels, but it does exclude an important subset of them. Specifically, it shows that if you have a group of photons that all have independent polarizations, then you can’t ascribe specific polarizations to each. It’s rather like saying that you know there are particular numbers of blue, white and silver cars in a car park — but it is meaningless even to imagine saying which ones are which. Me again: So when they try to derive a specific measurement for information, in a group of photons, they have uncertainty in the photons, yet when an observer makes a measurement for a specific photon only then does the information become specific. I consider this experiment hard proof that information is not inherent to photons but is indeed independent of it. Thus ruling out the possibility of specific information arising from energy. I admit that evidence is a little hard to see but this next piece of evidence drives the point home: I found the following this morning in trying to establish informations independence and transcendence of the "material realm: http://www.siam.org/news/news.php?id=562 Landauer’ s principle: The most enduring fruit of Landauer’s speculation is the (seemingly counter-intuitive) conclusion that the only part of the computing process that necessarily consumes energy is the erasure of information. Information on the position of the particle can be acquired reversibly without having to pay the energy bill, but erasing information does have a cost! Thus I reason, the law of conservation of information can be tied semi-directly to the law of conservation of energy. i.e. If information “arose” as a purely “material” supplement to energy then the first and second law would heavily suggest that the information could be erased with no consumption of energy. i.e. in fact the thermodynamic laws would suggest energy would be recovered from information upon its erasure, Since information would be presumed to be “made out of energy” in the materialistic framework. If information was truly a dependent “supplement” to energy, as is presupposed in materialism, then energy by all rights should be expected to be recovered by the informations erasure. Yet since erasure of information is proven to consume energy and computing “new information’ is proven to not necessarily consume information, this provides solid foundational scientific support to the fact that information is a completely separate entity from energy/matter. Thus, I would like to think, we can now safely say, like energy, information can neither be created nor destroyed. Information can be discovered by men, and written on material mediums, and information can be imparted into this material realm by a "Designer", but ultimately all information that can exist already exist in the "spiritual realm", it is timeless, it is a real "physical entity, that has the exact physical consequences to energy that would be required if the "spiritually real" existence is absolutely true!bornagain77_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

I have never said that ID is not science. I have said that it is irrelevant, because science can tell us nothing that we need to know. ID, by aping scientific arguments, is only distracting the people who need the message of Christ the most: the unsaved. The witness of the Holy Spirit is how I know, frost. Not because of any man made apologetics or because of any 'facts' falsely so called. How can God contradict Himself? Walt Whitman said "I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes". How much larger is God? For you to claim that God contradicts Himself is to call yourself God, for only God could even know that. You are struggling against God and I cannot help you with that, except to suggest that you seek refuge in His Word and not in fanciful imaginary stories of aliens creating fracterial blagellums or 'guided evolution'.Lazarus_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

Well you said that god says it so its true but you didn't say how you knew because you don’t know and you are a fraud. And more importantly you have no argument at all. I pray because as i made perfectly clear I was raised a Christian. People go to shrines in Japan if they are raised Shinto not because they know deep down god loves them. You are dishonest. Deep down I admit that I know intuitively that there is more. but you have not addressed the facts because you are consumed by your ego and arrogance. You think that only you are right and this is not science and just because you think it doesn’t mean that you are right. And as far as God judging me, Im not so sure but you are being judged for sure by everyone on this web blog who knows that you are way off topic. Now becuase of the responce (or lack there of) you posted to my comments I am no longer going to speak with you. I destryoed your argument you can no longer say no one adressed it. All you want to now do is create a theologicla debate that is never ending. Ill say how can God do this and youll quote the bible. I'll say how can the bible be trusted when it contradicts itself here and youll create a metaphysical argument bsed on interpretaion. Its all nonsense because you are a fool. Not for beleiveing in God and Christ but for failing to recognise the purpose of this site and the perameters of the theory of intelligent design.Frost122585_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Frost the reason that you pray is that you know deep down that God loves you and wants you to come back to him. The bible is true because God said it is, and not because of any of the materialist arguments you have put forth but because I have a relationship with the holy spirit and that trumps all or any of your facts falsely so called. You have let science be your god and you will be judged by it.Lazarus_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

Dembski purportedly has said "any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient". I agree, but would go one further: our worldview must BEGIN and END with Christ. The great Henry Morris has said "There's another very important factor to keep in mind. As Christians, we ought to be more concerned with winning souls for eternity than getting a hearing in the public forum. And even more important than winning souls for Christ is unreservedly honoring God's Word, forever "settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89). Someday all the schools will be gone and even heaven and earth will "pass away" but His Word "shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). By attempting to argue without the Bible, however, the Intelligent Design theorists are ignoring the most important aspect of the whole question—namely, the history of life on Earth. After all, the creation/evolution issue is really a question of history, rather than science. Not could evolution happen, but did it happen? Evolutionists seem to think that Darwin proved that natural selection could account for all the amazing evidences of design in nature. If they can imagine how a feature might have evolved, they feel that proves it did happen. Any impossible event will occur if there is enough time, they like to claim." And IDists seem to think that 'Intelligent Design' can account for all the things that evolutionary materialism cannot. They are also mistaken, for only God can account for those things. Thus, God and Intelligent must be synonymous. If so, why the insistence that they don't need to be, unless Christians are comfortable being ashamed of their faith and lying when they know FULLY WELL who the Designer is. So I am not proselytizing. I assume that if you are here, you are probably a Christian. I would like you and all others, me included, to consider our witness and the damage that trying to argue with science does to it. Science tells us nothing worth knowing.Lazarus_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

Well I'll deal with your arguments Lazarus. Ok, first I would like to make clear that all of your arguments in the formal sense are a bunch of assertions that basically all fall under the argument that a. the bible is literally true b. the bible is the only truth that matters and c. the bible is all that matters. This site and the work that built ID theory don’t even mention the bible. This site is not a religion site. But lets first deal with the premises of your stupid argument. A. the bible is true. ok how do you know this for sure. Were you alive when Christ was alive if he ever lived? Did you see the miracles? How do you know that his body wasn’t removed by other people? How do you know that the bible wasn’t written by other people not present for any of this and that it isn’t all heresy or gossip. Where is the video evidence? How can you test this theory? The answer to al of these question that arise with your assertions is 3 things 1. no one knows. 2. it cant be proven. and 3. it isn’t science. ID 1. is known to exist 2. can be proven or falsified (in the scientifically superfluous sense) and IS science. So as you can see your argument is all based on assertions out of belief. This is not science. But i think the real reason you want an ID advocate to debate you is you want us to disprove Christianity because as a Darwinian evolutionist you think we are all closet creationists. Well I am not. I was raised Christian. I pray sometimes if I have a problem or something but I don’t know the bible to be true. I don’t force it on other people and I don’t tell other that i know its true when i know that I don’t know if its true or not. I do however hope it is. And I do think ID is science. I think the universe displays signs of intelligence that transcends the ideas of randomness and pointlessness and simple physicals. In case you haven’t realized it almost all of the stories that are posted by the formal contributors to this site are about science and design not Christ and religion. And you are being singled out because you are off topic so bad that I think you are a fraud.Frost122585_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

well I have no problem with people saying what they think even if it seems impractical. My concern is this. As long as the regular media and class rooms across the country reject ID we have to have a place where we can continue to discuss and develop the ideas/ concepts of ID. Basically we have to get ID into the social arena but as long as it is banned by government we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I think the site has good members overall. I just hope people like Lazarus aren’t allowed to continue to speak totally of topic. The issue is topic. If I got on here and talked all about golf and had the audacity to call ID proponents “metaphysical masturbators” I should be banned, not simply for being off topic or just for language but for disinterest and disrespect. Religion is relevant in moderate amounts but proselytizing is clearly not what this site is for.Frost122585_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply