Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 15772 Location: Ponderosa
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:41 pm Post subject:
Just read Richard Dawkins book River out of Eden. Like all his books, it's a great read. Indeed, it has induced me to buy several more books by authors he recommends. (At $12 a book or so on abebooks.com, I get a couple of books for every hair salon visit my wife gets.)
Anybody else read it? I need to debate an idea in one of his chapters, that armchair logic from evolutionary genetics principles, leads to the conclusion that one half of all babies will be male. _________________ Other vegetables have a hard time competing with potatoes.
Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 10847 Location: Where the wind don't blow so strange
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject:
iceclimb wrote:
ON the issue of Intelligent design as a theory, it seems you might be mistaken on your very first point... that "ID at its core, really attempts to explore causation to the Cosmos"...
I am not mistaken at all. When postulating the Big Bang, cause is as much at issue as effect.
iceclimb wrote:
In 80 some pages of the previous debate, and in most references on line, ID does NOT attempt to determine the root causation of the universe, it very clearly is about whether or not there is a God, god, goddess, or dog.
Appeals to authority are mostly irrelevant and the causation issue as it relates to ID has NOT been put to rest by science. Maybe in some philosophy circles (i.e. Dawkins) but not in the sciences that study origins and the means therein.
iceclimb wrote:
In fact the whole IDEA of Intelligent Design is to assign an Intelligence to a Designer instead of accepting random mutation and evolution as a non directed series of events.
Yes, both theories are just that and have NOT been put to rest. The latter case simply asserts chance as one's god.
iceclimb wrote:
Therefore, ID and Science are at odds, because science (for the most part) follows data to come up to conclusions, while ID starts with a conclusion (that there is an intelligent designer) and attempts to make facts fit that conclusion.
This is false. The Big Bang theory assumes a cause. "Chance" theory cannot address this cause, but possibly life origins (i.e., evolution). ID specifically tries to address the causation. Science is not as rigid as many would have it be, however, I will concede that I'm not sure that science can "prove" ID. Not all theories move to law, in fact most do not.
iceclimb wrote:
The origin of the universe question is part of the debate certainly, however, the differences between the two is not in that specific argument, but rather the way each of them are structured. IN fact, both might come to the same conclusion on any given topic.. but arrive at them in different ways.
Not sure what "the two" you refer to are. If they are ID and Chance, respectively, then you err at least in that Chance cannot address cause. This creates a false dichotomy between cause and effect that need not be and therefore defeats your own argument.
iceclimb wrote:
Scientist: I see a monkey, I can test for monkeyness, I can touch the monkey (no bad jokes), therefore what is in front of me is a monkey.
ID: God created monkeys.. and that looks like a monkey in front of me, so that is a monkey.
Scientist: The origins of the Universe seem to point to a singularity. However, time existed prior to the singularity therefore asserting cause. Chance violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, therefore with the existence of time prior to the singularity cause is still unknown.
ID: Given the complexities of causation and the resulting effects, is it reasonable to assert an intelligent designer? Yes, it is reasonable. Hawking makes this assertion as anthropomorphic, neo-creationists assert their god. I'm asserting neither, but simply the reasonable nature within the realm of science to allow ID as a theoretical cause.
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 15772 Location: Ponderosa
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject:
mtele wrote:
Appeals to authority are mostly irrelevant and the causation issue as it relates to ID has NOT been put to rest by science. Maybe in some philosophy circles (i.e. Dawkins) but not in the sciences that study origins and the means therein.
Dawkins is a zoologist and in 1990 was awarded the Royal Society Michael Faraday Award for the furtherance of the public understanding of science.
Much of his books artfully debunk the arguments of Intelligent Design theorists that biological systems are so complex as to be unlikely to have evolved. _________________ Other vegetables have a hard time competing with potatoes.
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 Posts: 2109 Location: centered, I hope.
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject:
Nooooo... .
"That is, ID at its core, really attempts to explore causation to the Cosmos "
That part is NOT true. ID at it's core asserts that there is an Intelligent Designer. One of the many things that ID'ers use as a proof is the argument you state. The precept is still the same, that there is a designer.
In fact, if you do a relatively simply search, use google, for Intelligent Design, you'll find most areas make that simple assertion, Science does not make that assertion.
Now, you said you don't want to get into the philosophic or religious aspects... however, that simple assertion immediately presupposes that there is A DESIGNER.
As far as causation being put to rest, that's a separate issue, and it's not at rest at all. Anthony Flew even states there's a god now, can you imagine? The longest standing atheist on the planet is now a deist.... wow.
as for the other things... ID is a larger theory than the big bang... it's a philosophy for approching those problems. _________________ Liberte de calcaneus!
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 Posts: 2109 Location: centered, I hope.
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject:
Something else... the "latter theory" does not simply "insert Chance as one's god".
It's an utterly opposite approach to solving problems. With ID, we START with the idea that all causation is from an intelligent designer.
A scientist would look at the data, and try to find a type of causation that would create that data set. The end result is not known at the beginning of the search. _________________ Liberte de calcaneus!
Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 10847 Location: Where the wind don't blow so strange
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:29 pm Post subject:
Baaahb wrote:
mtele wrote:
Appeals to authority are mostly irrelevant and the causation issue as it relates to ID has NOT been put to rest by science. Maybe in some philosophy circles (i.e. Dawkins) but not in the sciences that study origins and the means therein.
Dawkins is a zoologist and in 1990 was awarded the Royal Society Michael Faraday Award for the furtherance of the public understanding of science.
Much of his books artfully debunk the arguments of Intelligent Design theorists that biological systems are so complex as to be unlikely to have evolved.
Agreed, that his scientific arguments dealt with irreducible complexities (cf. Behe), however he spent a fair amount of time debating atheism on a philosophical level. That was my point, but thanks for the clarification.
A definition of terms is required. Since Wikipedia has been linked, and is a good source:
Quote:
Intelligent design (ID) is the neo-Creationist concept 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."
...
The stated purpose is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents.
... the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."
(1) From the definition, we see that ID is primarily about explaining "Life on Earth," secondarily (at most, by extension of "natural systems") about explaining the origin of the cosmos.
Therefore "leaving aside" arguments about evolution is sidestepping the problem with a red herring.
(2) The specific comparison of ID to evolution by natural selection (NS) tells us that ID is viewed by its proponents as a competitor of that theory. Therefore ID must provide a superior explanation, in detail, for the facts that NS purports to explain. NS deals only with the evolution of living things on Earth, not the origin of the cosmos.
Therefore ID must focus in large part on the evolution of living things on Earth.
(3) There was an appeal to Hawking's authority re: the causation of the Universe. Appeals to authority are not necessarily fallacious, but one should be clear about that authority's statement:
Quote:
Asked ... to explain his assertion ... that the question, "What came before the big bang?" was meaningless, [Stephen Hawking] compared it to asking, "What lies north of the north pole?"
(4) Some question about whether 'Science' has "put ID to rest." Again, an appeal to authority - not very interesting, if we seek the actual meat of the matter.
So to dismiss in summary: given any reasonable definition of Science and Scientists, the answer is: yes.
Furthermore, the court has also put ID to rest. Right next to Creationism.
(5) The very definition of ID requires the existence, at least in the past, of intelligent agents capable of designing and directing the creation of some natural systems.
Therefore, anyone trying to convince you of the correctness of ID is also, necessarily, trying to convince you of the existence of said intelligent agents.
A lack of evidence and reason supporting the existence of said agents is therefore a lack of support for ID.
Whether those agents are equivalent to any deities depends on the definitions of those deities and the proposed properties of those intelligent agents. Technically, that question is irrelevant to the ID vs. NS argument. Politically, it is the main question.
First a couple of comments before pasting in my copied material.
1) Due to my intense lack of a scientific background, I'm leaving all the nuts & bolts science discussion to the considerable talent of so many other posters here.
2) My arguments against Intelligent Design do not mean I am anti-religion, far from it.
3) I think it is always important to try and understand motivations and potential bias, therefore I believe Deep Throat's mantra of, "Follow the money" applies in many areas, and particularly so in understanding Intelligent Design.
So, having said that, let's follow the money. It leads directly to the Discovery Institute. Check on where the Discovery Institute gets its money and you'll find Mr. Howard Ahmanson, Jr., as the founder and the source of their funding.
Yes, this is the same Mr. Howard Ahmanson, Jr. who has the interesting connection with Diebold Voting Machines, the Chalcedon Society of the Christian Reconstructionists, as well as an interesting crossing of paths with virtually all of the major players in the current administration.
Mr. Ahmanson has every right in the world to use his fortune to support and promote whatever religious, social, and political issues he chooses to. I have no problem at all with that.
My purpose is to make the point that Intelligent Design is not a stand alone grass roots movement. It is part of an incredibly well funded, highly organized, highly motivated plan to create wedge issues to push America into the direction of Mr. Ahmanson's beliefs. He has a right to try and do that, and we have an obligation to try and understand what that means to each of us.
For starters, a search of Ahmanson Intelligent Design brings up the following on the first page. If you care to see more of where Mr. Ahmanson's web of contacts leads, try searching: Ahmanson Diebold; Ahmanson Rumsfeld; Ahmanson Cheney, Ahmanson Chalcedon....just for starters.
Quote:
Heir spends family fortune to discredit evolution theoryHoward Fieldstead Ahmanson, Discovery Institute funding ... Still, Discovery's most visible impact has been with intelligent design. ...
www.geocities.com/lclane2/discovery.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
Americans United: The Discovery InstituteThe plan is straightforward: use intelligent design as a wedge to undermine evolution with ... (Ahmanson is aligned with Christian Reconstructionism, ...
www.au.org/site/ News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&abbr=cs_ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages
No Intelligent Design as science in public schools : Archaeology ...Intelligent Design should not be taught as science in our public schools. ... money lender wealth from Howard Ahmanson, Jr. The movement is orgnaized by the ...
www.cafepress.com/shovelbums/869155 - 42k - Cached - Similar pages
Christian Reconstructionism & Intelligent DesignDefenders of Intelligent Design insist that it is a program of ... Howard and Robert Ahmanson are major funders of Christian Reconstructionism in America. ...
atheism.about.com/b/a/245985.htm - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
OrcinusIntelligent Design offers no explanation of it, and the Young-Earth Creationists offer ... Among Ahmanson's other projects has been the directorship of the ...
dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004/ 11/intelligence-on-their-designs.html - 62k - Cached - Similar pages
Introduction to Intelligent DesignThe "intelligent design" creationist movement is directed from the Center for ... by or affiliated with California savings and loan heir Howard Ahmanson. ...
rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ID-intro/Sect2.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design ..."Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops ... Ahmanson was, for 20 years, a member of the board of directors of the ...
www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID2.cfm - 70k - Cached - Similar pages
Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive - Free Preview ...The picture showed Howard Ahmanson Sr. -- not Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., ... which promotes the concept known as intelligent design to explain the origins of ...
ga1.org/ct/h1111111gPnv/ - Similar pages
Chris C MooneyAccording to the Baptist Press, this year Ahmanson granted $2.8 million to the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, Discovery's intelligent design ...
www.chriscmooney.com/blog.asp?Id=513 - 38k - Cached - Similar pages
Intelligent Design Jokes, NewsFollowUp.comAnschutz, Ahmanson, Scaife, Gibson..and Hagee (page 2).their weapons are television, the movies, 'intelligent design' and Bush.. and...? and Abramoff ...
www.newsfollowup.com/intelligentdesignjokes_8.htm - 73k - Cached - Similar pages
Joined: 08 Dec 2004 Posts: 2793 Location: Bay Area
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:45 pm Post subject:
Yay! Let's get this sucker to 100!
mtele wrote:
how exactly are ID and science at odds?
Mainly because particular religiticians have decided that they are at odds. If I break my leg, is it because God smote me, or because my DIN setting was too high? Well hey, maybe both! For more on how spirituality and science are actually quite compatible, read up on the Dalai Lama and some of what he has to say on the subject.
But you see the "Intelligent Design" initiative isn't really about philosophical inquiry into the nature of fate and free will. Like the Lemon Dude says, it's about rationalizing an agenda to shoe-horn Christian indoctrination into a context where children are supposed to be getting educated.
Also, I think a big part of what underlies the Christian leaders' beef with evolution in particular is that evolution theory effectively broke what was once a logical basis "proving" the existance of God. It was once a reasonable hypothesis that any physical object or being or system must necessarily be created by some more sophisticated object or being nor system. Taken to its limit, such a hypothesis demands that an all-powerful God exist. Of course, Darwin blew that hypothesis to pieces.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All of the comments above are owned by the
poster, telemarktips.com is not responsible in any way for the
content. The views expressed by the posters are not necessarily
those of Tt.com, its management or owners. Ski safe, be happy,
rip it up, smile on your brother and sister!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
