Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

_{GilDodgen
August 15, 2006

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Which claims in the ID versus Darwinism/materialism debate are extraordinary?

ID asserts that the fine tuning of the universe for life (thoroughly documented by astrophysicists in increasingly excruciating detail), the origin of living systems from non-living matter, and the evolution of a single cell into humans capable of inventing science, technology, art and philosophy, are best explained by design. Design is a straightforward conclusion that screams at most people from all quarters, which is why only a small percentage of the American populace accepts blind-watchmaker evolutionary theory.

ID is an ordinary claim, and evidence for it is mounting rapidly, on scales from the astronomically huge to the submicroscopically small.

Materialistic philosophy asserts that the fine tuning of the universe for life is an accident. (Perhaps our life-tuned universe is the result of an infinitude of in-principle undetectable random universes produced by an in-principle undetectable random-universe-generating machine?) Materialistic philosophy asserts that inanimate matter spontaneously generated life. (No one has the faintest idea how this happened, or even how it could have happened. Origin-of-life hypotheses are hopelessly lost in a web of mutually contradictory speculations that are impotent in the face of the origin of biological information.) And blind-watchmaker Darwinism asserts that random errors (with failed experiments thrown out by natural selection) turned an unexplained cell into human civilization and all that it entails.

Darwinism/materialism is an extraordinary claim — a fantastic claim — and evidence for it is increasingly being shown to be not much more than wishful speculation.

Comments

If anyone here wants to read Hume's Dialogues but finds his late 18th-century English a bit difficult, there's a modernized version available here.Carlos_{August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PST}

I think that even most neo-Darwinists would agree with Aristotle's sentiment, "all philosophy begins with wonder." The divide seems to be between those who are willing to simply accept that the universe, and humanity, are a sort of glorious, wonderful accident, and those who insist on explanation. Among some mystics (apophatic or negative mysticism) the demand for explanation is seen as interfering with the encounter with the divine, since the divine (on some traditions) transcends all conceptualizations of a finite intellect. The philosopher Wittgenstein remarked, "It is not how the world is, but that the world is, that is the mystical." This is not the first time I've noticed a peculiar dual-identity to intelligent design theory, one which is the source of both its appeal and its difficulties. It wants to be both science and theology -- an empirical theology, if you will. I'm not surprised that it's been criticized from both scientific and theological directions. Incidentally, all the problems with empirical theology were already detected by the philosopher Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Forget about Darwin; Hume is the real problem. I'm serious. Read it, and you'll see why.Carlos_{August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PST}

Gil: ID asserts that the fine tuning of the universe for lifeÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ etc MikeFNQ: Well, there goes any pretense that ID isn't saying that the designer is God. What you say doesn't foolow what Gil stated. Just because a designer designed the universe does NOT mean there is eternal salvation. When considering the materialistic alternative to ID is "sheer-dumb-luck". And when puddles can "wake up" Adams will have a point. Until then there is an abundance of data in "The Privileged Planet" that demonstrates Adams is sorely mistaken. Here is your chance- tell us how to test or falsify the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process in a population in which not one bacterium had such a structure. Max Planck- during his Nobel prize acceptance speech (knowledge gathered from many years of scientific research):
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."
Joseph_{August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PST}

. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning It's easy if you try. Actually, it's not. But it can be said via cold, hard, objective reason that those who resort to anthropomorphisizing bodies of left-over rainwater to make points in a debate, have lost the debate.tribune7_{August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PST}

Well, there goes any pretense that ID isn't saying that the designer is God. Thanks Bill!
Why God? Why not admit that there may be some kind of intelligence which is just way beyond our little brains\' capacity to understand? And such a statement indicates that we should limit our observations because we are uncomfortable with the implications of what we may discover. Look, if the evidence points to an incredibly powerful intelligence beyond our comprehension, so be it. Even if we don\'t like it.Scott_{August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PST}

Gil, note the nitpicking and hairsplitting that ensues when these issues and blatant observations which scream design are laid out on the table. Lately I find myself employing the phrase: "Any port in a storm" ad nauseum, but it SO applies.Scott_{August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PST}

"In other words, shall we take what exhibits mountains of apparent design, and throw the theory based on design out, to be replaced by alternate theories that certainly are to a large degree convoluted, contrived, and unprovable." I'm curious to know how design is provable and evolution* isn't. "We have to account for simple matter arranged to produce incomprehensible levels of complexity without the influence of intellingence at any stage in the process." If so then we also need to account for simple matter arranged to produce life with the influence of intelligence at specific stages in the process. "It's rather funny how Darwinists Ã¢â‚¬Å“forgetÃ¢â‚¬Â Occam's Razor when it suits their needs." Some might say invoking an incredibly powerful unknown designing force violates Occam's Razor. "The reason why people deny the design hypothesis, is not for scientific reasons, but for philosophical reason, IMO." I could just as easily say the reason why people accept the design inference if for philosophical reasons.Chris Hyland_{August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PST}

Ekstasis,
In other words, shall we take what exhibits mountains of apparent design, and throw the theory based on design out, to be replaced by alternate theories that certainly are to a large degree convoluted, contrived, and unprovable.
Don't forget -> self-contradictory, unscientific, refuted, "hoaxed", and mythological. It's rather funny how Darwinists "forget" Occam's Razor when it suits their needs. If biological life forms apear to be designed, that's probably because, they were designed. The reason why people deny the design hypothesis, is not for scientific reasons, but for philosophical reason, IMO.Mats_{August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PST}

It would be hard to imagine a more philosophically destitute category mistake than d. adams' puddle analogy above. This is the very argument that is being discussed here. Darwinists are continually declaring that some future discovery will give the lie to a rational person's assesment that life and people are intrinsically complex and of a different sort of 'stuff' (qualitatively) than rocks and stars and puddles. The Darwinist drastic recursive oversimplification seems to go like this: 1. We have to account for simple matter arranged to produce incomprehensible levels of complexity without the influence of intellingence at any stage in the process. 2. constituent matter within this 'apparent' complexity is simple. 3. Therefore the complexity itself is an illusion which will yield to the eventual TOE. I wonder if the Darwinist would consider the phrase "a sense of wonder" as applied to our sense of place in the Universe, a sunset, etc. an oxymoron : "If we had any sense, we wouldn't wonder at all." (Equivocation was for free)kvwells_{August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PST}

The litmus test of "ordinary claim" vs "extraordinary claim" seems not to be primarily a matter of what people generally perceive or that one theory requires more evidence than another, but rather gets back to Occam's Razor. In other words, shall we take what exhibits mountains of apparent design, and throw the theory based on design out, to be replaced by alternate theories that certainly are to a large degree convoluted, contrived, and unprovable.Ekstasis_{August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PST}

Douglas Adams, RIP, once uttered the following brilliance: . . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. * As quoted in Richard Dawkins' Eulogy for Douglas Adams How do we calculate the probabilities of Universal constants? Badly.MikeFNQ_{August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PST}

Im not sure scientists claim that evolution is an 'ordinary claim', and whether or not the evidence is mounting I cant see how you can claim ID is and 'ordinary claim'. That's not saying it isn't true, its just saying that it requires just as much evidence as evolution. That it "screams at most people from all quarters" doesn't count as it certainly doesn't scream at a lot of people myself included. I don't know too much about astrophysics so could someone give me a link to an article that explains how the probabilities are calculated for the constants. Thanks.Chris Hyland_{August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PST}

"Well, there goes any pretense that ID isn't saying that the designer is God" I don't think you really understand the distinction that is made if you say something like that. I am sure there are many ID people that have no problem with suggesting that the designer is a god of some sort, certianly something like that must be true for the fine tuning of the universe, but the identity of the designer is a seperate question from the question of whether or not a designer exists. One is a theological question the other is a scientific question.jwrennie_{August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PST}

Oops... Not Bill, GilMikeFNQ_{August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PST}

ID asserts that the fine tuning of the universe for life... etc Well, there goes any pretense that ID isn't saying that the designer is God. Thanks Bill!MikeFNQ_{August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PST}

The fine tuning argument, I think, can go MUCH deeper in it's tuning argument. For example: Not only are the various existing universal parameters fine tuned...but the universal set {..of all existing parameters..} avaialable are seemingly all required. Any more or different parameteres would probabilistically have just added chaos or insufficiency for life. Any less would have been too simple for even a snowflake or salt crystal to form. :)JGuy_{August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PST}

So true so true... I think what Dr. Dembski and Co. is (unfortunately) true that this is a battle for the next generation. I mean if the "old regime" keeps fitting every new discovery whether it be soft tissue from a Trex (even if you don't believe it there are some NDE that accept that it is soft tissue and don't change their mind), DNA, immunology, microtubules (these babies are crazy), nothing will...jpark320_{August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3