Aug 012005
 

Krauze on Telic Thoughts has a nice collection of the responses to New Scientist. I disagree with Krauze on one of the response which said, “To dismiss arguments for ID merely because they have been hijacked by creationists is like dismissing Darwinism because social Darwinism lead to the holocaust.” This is a redherring. ID critics know this is not true as I’ve pointed out in Atheism’s Trojan Horse vs. Creationism’s Trojan Horse.

Why is this tactic important to the Darwinists? Maybe it is because they know that the general public is skeptical of Darwinian evolution, but they are even more skeptical of injecting any religious belief on someone else and on science. If they are successful in branding Intelligent Design as a Christian belief then they would have successfully kill any public support for ID. This is a good tactic because it had worked before with YEC. Why bother dealing with the merits of ID and science when you can mislead the public by hiding the truth.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
16 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
edarrell
edarrell
15 years ago

If it’s atheism versus creationism, why do the creationist insist on shooting at evolution and other scientists, instead of shooting at atheists?

The issue of religious involvement is a legal issue: Schools can’t preach; to the extent intelligent design is born of religious belief, and not of science, it cannot be taught without a lot of backing from science — and with no backing from science, it’s complete anathema.

It has nothing to do with public reaction, and everything to do with filing suit.

teleologist
15 years ago

First, ID is not Creationism or religiously based. Your repeated obfuscation of this fact is not conducive
to objective scientific dialogue. Second, you’ve completed misunderstood the point that I was making. Darwinian evolution is synonomous with Atheism as I’ve demonstrated in Atheism’s Trojan Horse. I agree with you schools can’t preach therefore Atheistic Darwinian evolution should not be taught in schools. However, I am a pragmatist and we can’t change the opening of Pandora’s box. The best we can do now is to counter the deception of Darwinism with real science embodied in Design theory.

island
island
15 years ago

ID has-not and cannot prove that design in nature is intelligent in origin.

That’s the REAL Trojan Horse, because knee-jerk reactionism to perceived fanaticism has caused proponents of evolutionary theory to willfully ignore and even deny that “design in nature” can even exist.

That’s because they see this as evidence for god.

hmmmm

teleologist
15 years ago

I agree if you mean that ID cannot prove design at this time, which is why ID is a hypothesis. It would also depend on what you mean by prove. If you take the epistemology of Hume than we can’t be sure of anything. I think we can prove or determine if a biological artifact has a design origin. For instance, we once believed in spontaneous generation, but careful observation and experimentation has dispel that notion beyond a reasonable doubt. It would be unreasonable to claim spontaneous generation can still occur if given enough time, over millions of years. As a result spontaneous generation can only be inferred. That would be an unreasonable epistemology.

In terms of biological system the same epistemology can be applied. Is there a limit to the variability of a biological artifact? Is it bound or unbound through random and unguided? What can such a mechanism produce? What does a bound and guded system produce? What are the signatures of a designed system? Do these signatures exist in the artifact under evaluation? By answering these questions we can prove if a biological system is intelligently designed.

island
island
15 years ago

I agree if you mean that ID cannot prove design at this time.

Whoa!… I didn’t say that design in nature can’t be “proven”, I said that INTELLIGENT design can’t be proven with evidence for design in nature.

“Proven”, to me, is that which is supported by the preferred theory, which is the most accurate projection, in the least number of possible steps… and that’s as close as it gets.

teleologist
15 years ago

island, can you please elaborate on your distinction between “Intelligent” design and “design” in nature? If possible can you define how design would work absent of “intelligence/teleology”?

island
island
15 years ago

Ahhhh… the grand distinction that the world awaits… đŸ˜‰

1) Humans are a part of nature, so design does exist in nature if human design exists.

2) “Design” is simply the sum of expressed bias toward satisfying a physical need, necessity being the mother of invention, there is no difference in what humans do and what the rest of nature does in this respect, and only pure unadulterated human arrogance can separate us from the rest of nature to presume that human design represents anything more or less than a natural predisposition to making our own version “fairy rings” by the same physics that motives such occurrences in other parts of nature.

3) The anthropic principle as applied only to the observed universe “proves” design in nature if we’re not here by accident… then what is it?

island
island
15 years ago

4) If the characteristics of the universe pre-exist at the moment of the big bang, then design is perpetually inherent, so there is no “designer” if it’s just thermodynamic principles.

5) The anthropic principle holds the universe near perfectly flat, which maximizes the time that it takes for universal heat-death, so there’s good reason for us to be here.

teleologist
15 years ago

Thanks for your elaboration island. Here is my comment on your view.

1) Humans are a part of nature, so design does exist in nature if human design exists.

Although this argument might be used as a supporting actor, it is not particularly strong stand alone. It is the same rational ontological argument that Anselm used for the existance of God. Kant descimated this argument by convincingly argue that science must be based on empiricism.

2) “Design” is simply the sum of expressed bias toward satisfying a physical need, necessity being the mother of invention, there is no difference in what humans do and what the rest of nature does …

This is also a continuation of the ontological argument. The problem I have with this is that even if I were to accept that human existance is evidence of design. It doesn’t mean that any other aspect of nature is designed. This is not arrogance, to assume arrogance is arrogance itself because of our anthropomorphic view of nature. For instance, as one who is well-versed in physics, I am sure you would agree there is an ontological difference between the mechanics of motion as explained by the theory of relativity and the anthropic principles of physics. IOW, although you can argue that certain laws of physics are designed, but the theory of relativity is not.

3) The anthropic principle as applied only to the observed universe “proves” design in nature if we’re not here by accident” then what is it?

Good point. I also think this is a great example of design.

5) The anthropic principle holds the universe near perfectly flat, which maximizes the time that it takes for universal heat-death, so there’s good reason for us to be here.

I will take 5 before going back to 4. I am not so sure that anthropic principle alone is sufficient to explain our existance. There are a myriad of other factors as illustrated by the Privileged Planet. The type of star, location of our planet’s orbit, composition, and natural satellite, our location in the galaxy, etc..

4) If the characteristics of the universe pre-exist at the moment of the big bang, then design is perpetually inherent, so there is no “designer” if it’s just thermodynamic principles.

I wanted to save this point to the last because from what I can tell this is the crux of the distinction you are making between “Intelligent” design and design in nature. Unfortunately, this still does not answer my other question. Let me rephrase it this way. How can you have design without intelligence? If as you say that these anthropic principles were preexistent at the moment of the big bang, then is the big bang and the pursuant expansion teleological? IOW, teleolog is built in even in your definition of design. Intelligence is inescapable for design. Whether that intelligence is an emanation of the big bang, space aliens, or God.

inunison
inunison
15 years ago

And lets not exclude information load as a part in the picture.

island
island
15 years ago

1) Was in support of 2.

2) This is also a continuation of the ontological argument. The problem I have with this is that even if I were to accept that human existance is evidence of design.

No, I said that human design is evidence for design in nature… *if stuff that we design really is by design, then design is proven to exist in nature, since humans are a part of nature.

The theory of relativity is a near-absolute reflection of nature’s design, that’s why it’s naturally preferred. Relativity in a closed, finite, expanding, yet flat universe says that all motion satisfies the second law of thermodynamics by the most economical means possible, given the inherent imperfections in the energy that represent a perpetually inherent imbalance in the energy, which drives everything that is toward satisfaction of that perpetually inherent “need”.

3) The argument requires that the universe be finite and closed, which is what is observed, but is not the mainstream approach which accepted that the universe is open and infinite when Einstein could not prove that his static model isn’t unstable. That’s where the AP comes in, because it holds the universe flat and stable, so it’s predicting that the universe is finite and closed, and that Einstein was somehow right.

He was:
http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG

This being the case then Einstein wins in Copenhagen because “God”, meaning nature, does not throw dice” in this model.

Einstein died believing that this natually structured model was the right model, and that there was a higher method to nature’s apparent “madness”. This was his “faith”. I’m glad that he held onto it in the face of what he perceived to be irrationale` to the contrary that got used to supercede him when he could not prove the most natural extension of General Relativity.

5) The type of star, location of our planet’s orbit, composition, and natural satellite, our location in the galaxy, etc..

These are all examples of the constantly growing number of balanced, yet diametrically opposing anthropic coincidences that fall directly out of the physics of the anthropic principle. There can be little doubt that Gonzalez and Richards are aware of this. There are testable predictions about life that fall out of the information that I’ve already given, without any new physics and without modifying anything.

Brandon Carter’s extension of Robert Dicke’s observation was the basis for the principle, but the addition of each related coincidence serves to compound the implausability for this to be an accidental occurrence, exponentially.

How can you have design without intelligence? If as you say that these anthropic principles were pre-existent at the moment of the big bang, then is the big bang and the pursuant expansion teleological? IOW, teleolog is built in even in your definition of design. Intelligence is inescapable for design.

Both are inherent to the structure of the energy that defines the universe, and yes, all events are teleological in a finite closed universe, because LaPlace’s Demon is a perfectly valid scientific concept in Einsteins deterministic model.

If the anthropic cosmological principle is the most accurate representation of the mechanism that constrains the forces of the universe, then anthropic bias is totally justified, if not overblown with human arrogance, since the universally affective principle most certainly will be a “biocentric” principle, requiring life on every spiral galaxy that falls *BETWEEN* the relevant spectum of diametrically opposing tendencies.

Meaning that the prediction is for a fine layer of sentience to arise in systems that are approximately the same age as ours is, so SETI is wasting its time looking in the older and newer systems for this reason.

This also means that all life evolved at about the same time in the history of the universe for the same good reasons, so extraterrestrial life will be no more advanced than we are.

The prediction is that life will NOT be found on Mars or Venus, our closest brother/sister planets for the same reason, since life only appears *BETWEEN* the *relevant* spectrum of potential.

There should be much to be gained from this knowledge in the understanding of evolutionary biology and abiogenesis, as well, when applie from the ecosystematic perspective that these uncoincidentally anthropic-friendly ecobalances represent.

island
island
15 years ago

inunison,
There is no evidence to support that information is not inherent. Quite to the contrary, every last shred of evidence that we have at our disposal says exactly the opposite, and even Hawking’s latest paper supports this notion if a true event horizon never forms, then information is never lost because a perfect cosmic singularity cannot occur… so everything is perpetually inherent.

Hawking has clearly contradicted his previous papers, which only goes to boldly illustratethat the empirical universe must supercede all theoretical speculation beyond that in the origins debate, and that means that the anthropic principle rules the cosmology as supported by inhomogeneity that is observed to exist in the large scale structure of our universe in direct defiance of the Copernican Cosmological Principle, and in support of a biocentric principle, since life friendly “sites” for are required by the anthropic principle.

edarrell
edarrell
15 years ago

Evolution is no more atheist than algebra is. If you’ve “proven” this in another post, your post is defective.

And as an active, practicing Christian, I take umbrage at your ill-informed insult. The fact is that many of the chief theorists in evolution have been Christian — perhaps a majority of them. This includes Darwin, Wallace, Asa Gray, all the great dinosaur hunters of the 19th and early 20th centuries, Theodozius Dobzhansky, and in our time, Francis Collins. Evolution says nothing against God, and nothing against God’s involvement in life. If one were to bother to check with Christians, one would discover that Catholics, Episcopalians and Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Disciples of Christ, and even Mormons, have no problem with evolution. Belief in a literal Genesis is not required for salvation, especially when such belief is contrary to other scripture and with nature as God reveals it to us.

The issue of whether evolution is religion has been litigated several times. Under U.S. law, science is not religion. Creationism, unfortunately, is religious dogma, and completely lacking in science support. So it cannot be taught in science classes. (This decision was based on a number of sworn depositions and in-court testimony; interestingly, when put under oath, each and every creationist admitted there is no science backing creationism, and that it is based solely on a peculiar interpretation of one of the creation stories in scripture; funny how the story changes when perjury is possible.)

Is intelligent design NOT creationism? Then why does ID adopt almost all of the creationists’ bag of tricks in criticizing evolution (instead of, say, doing some research to establish intelligent design . . .)? Why is it that intelligent design is celebrated in “put Jesus back in the public schools” rallies at churches, but no ID advocate can be bothered to make a case at any major meeting of scientists? Why is it the chief architect of the intelligent design political movement, Phillip Johnson, says the movement is intended to bring religion back into schools and science? Why was the map for ID made at a meeting of Christian Dallas?

If ID isn’t religious, why is most of its money from religious fanatics? Why does its foundation fund-raising document claim that it is religious?

teleologist
15 years ago

Evolution is no more atheist than algebra? Are you serious? I’ve made the case that Darwinism is unequivocally Atheistic in Creationism’s Trojan Horse from Darwinists also here, here, here and here.

As to your claim of Christianity, I will judge that according to the Scripture as you should examine your own faith according to God’s Word. Our feelings of umbrage is irrelevant. 1 Corinthians 1:18

edarrell
edarrell
15 years ago

Yes, of course I’m serious. Moreover, your version of creation isn’t much Christian. But let’s stick to the science side.

Is there any paper published in any science journal in which a scientist says his or her latest discovery “proves there is no God?” No.

How about conjecture about how God’s role must be vanishingly small at this point of discovery? No.

So what is it you’re really complaining about? Nothing in scripture says “Darwin was wrong.” Nothing in scripture says “Evolution didn’t occur, and watch out for geology, too — and God disowns Newton, by the way.”

No, the difficulty comes when people assume, contrary to the facts, that Genesis was the first book of the Bible (Amos was written prior to Genesis being written down), and further that Genesis was written by one person with a consistent thought pattern all the way through. Theologians have warned us against such legalistic interpretations for at least 2000 years (cf., New Testament). Still peole insist on doing it.

But look at the difficulty that can entail when coupled with the legalistic drive for “literal interpretation”: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are from different sources, tell different stories, and conflict directly on details. Were either one literal, the other would be “wrong.”

Worse, there are four to six other, different creation stories told in the various Christian Bibles, some told different ways more than once. Genesis doesn’t at all square with the account of creation God gives Job, for example — there’s no dragon in Genesis, no Eden in Job; Job doesn’t say, “Hey, wait a minute: God, that’s not what you wrote in Genesis!” Clearly the story is one with which Job is familiar.

Legalists miss the message of scripture. Genesis does not give nuts and bolts of creation so we can duplicate it. Even in the most charitable interpretations, neither of the creation stories comes close to a “how to do it.” And that’s not the message. None of the creation stories tells how to do it.

Each says, instead, that whatever the method of creation, whatever the order of creation one attributes, God is behind it.

Start there. Darwin did. So did Newton. So does faith.

If God created, what we see in nature is true and accurate. It doesn’t square with the imagined nuts and bolts some see in Genesis? It wasn’t supposed to. Stop abusing scripture, you’ll go blind.

Oops. Most creationists appear already to have gone blind.

If the message of scripture is that, regardless the how of creation, God is behind it, then knowing what Darwin found changes nothing. Evolution? Descent with modification? Almost infinite variation? God is behind it, somehow. We know more than the authors of Genesis, but we need not have less faith than they had. Remember the message of Proverbs — with all our getting, let’s get wisdom.

Creationism in all its forms is a denial of God and God’s creation.

Evolution is atheist only if one determines that creation is bad, and that looking closely at what God has wrought is a foolish idea.

Most Christians abandoned the Oomphalos Error in the 19th century. You might do well to read up on it, and come into the 21st century yourself.

In this newest century we could use good people with a firm understanding of Godspell. We don’t need neo-Luddites railing against all the advances of science that promote healing and feeding people, however. Was Jesus a Fellow at the Discovery Institute, or a fisher and healer of men? Go thou and do likewise.

teleologist
15 years ago

Your view of Christianity and the Bible are so erroneous and far off of the mainstream, I seriously doubt that you are even a Christian. Your view of Christianity parrots much of the anti-Christian and atheist web liars like talkorigins and infidels.org. I would spend the time to correct your diatribe if I thought that it would help alas, you are blind by you own stubbornness.

As to your attempt to force God into your atheistic Darwinian worldview, it is pathetic. Once again it demonstrate that you don’t understand the issue and have not bother to spend the time to read what I wrote with numerous references to source materials as to the inherent Atheistic demand from Darwinism. Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself by reading my essays.

Now specifically to your inane examples, do you know anything about the scientific methods? Do you know that you are asking to prove a universal negative? First, Darwinism assumes naturalism as a prerequisite therefore it would not even consider proving God’s role or existence in any way. Let me demonstrate by rephrasing your inane examples.
Is there any paper published in any science journal in which a scientist says his or her latest discovery “proves there is no Intelligent Design?” No.
How about conjecture about how Intelligent Design’s role must be vanishingly small at this point of discovery? No.
So what is it you’re really complaining about? Is ID a part of science? Go defend that with your Atheistic Darwinian friends.
Lastly, if you wish to continue posting on this topic, please read my essay and quotes from Darwinian source references. They clearly state the dogmatic premise of the boundary of Darwinian science, which all Darwinists with any repute agree. Sorry, I am not going to waste any more time with your unsubstantiated conjecture. If you must respond please address directly with quotes from the Darwinian sources that I’ve provided regarding the nature of Darwinian science.