The whole truth
Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
|
| Quote (ArborealDescendent @ Feb. 28 2015,17:56) | | Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 28 2015,19:22) | | Quote (ArborealDescendent @ Feb. 28 2015,17:22) | | I'm new here, just an interested layman, and I would just like to let my stance on the issues be known. I accept that evolution works but I also think that ID researchers like Dembski are on to something. |
What is it, exactly, that those guys are "on to"? As far as real science is concerned, they ain't got jack. Contrary to what you may have heard or gleaned or concuded from pro-ID propaganda, real science has a methodology to detect design, and this methodology is widely used in those branches of real science (forensics and archæology being my 'go to' examples of such) which are explicitly, directly about investigating intelligent design. That methodology can be summarized as "form a hypothesis of how whatever-it-is was manufactured, and make observations & do experiments which can test your hypothesis-of-manufacture".
ID-pushers never address the question of Manufacture. Which is kind of peculiar, really; if you only Design a thing without Manufacturing it, well, there's nothing to detect the Design of, now is there? But ID-pushers explicitly reject the notion of forming a hypothesis of Manufacture, generally on grounds somewhere in the neighborhood of but gee, we wouldn't want to make any unjustified assumptions on the nature/motives/methods/whatever of the Designer, now would we. So, okay, ID-pushers claim to have this rilly kewl methodology for detecting Design, and they claim that their methodology doesn't require making any assumptions whatsoever about the Designer.
Now, if that actually were true—if ID-pushers really did have a Design-detecting methodology that doesn't require making any assumptions whatsoever about the Designer—that would be way the hell nifty.
But they don't.
| Quote | | They are facing a lot of criticisms but so did Darwin when he first proposed his theory. |
That's right—in real science, every new idea gets put through the wringer of intense criticism, which means that the reception ID gets is nothing unusual at all, contrary to the help help we're being suppressed by a brutal, dogmatic Establishment!!1! narrative that so damn many ID-pushers try to sell. Good on you for not accepting that narrative, arborealdescendant.
| Quote | | If the formalized ID theories being put forth now… |
Hold it.
What "formalized ID theories"?
Over at the Discovery Institute's website, they've got an Intelligent Design FAQ, whose very first question is:
| Quote | 1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds 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. |
Note well that the assertion that such-and-such is best explained by an intelligent cause is not, in fact, an EXPLANATION for such-and-such. Rather, such-and-such is best explained by an intelligent cause is a bald, unsupported assertion that whatever the explanation for such-and-such may be, an intelligent cause will be part of that explanation.
Note well: There isn't any shadow of a hint about what that 'intelligent cause' is supposed to have done, or how that 'intelligent cause' did whatever it's supposed to have done, or why that 'intelligent cause' did whatever it's supposed to have done, or, well, anything at all about the 'intelligent cause' they insist is part of the 'best explanation' for…
Hmmm. "certain features of the universe and of living things". So, not only does ID not have anything to say about the Designer, ID is also uselessly vague about what, exactly, the Designer is supposed to have Designed.
Interesting, that.
So… um… according to what the biggest, most prominent ID-pushing organization around says the theory of ID is about… the theory of intelligent design can be summarized as somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something.
| Quote | | [if ID-pushing notions] had nothing going for them, they wouldn't be creating all the fuss that they are. |
I agree, but I suspect you've misidentified the thing which ID-pushing notions have going for them. Judging by what you've written here, you seem to believe that ID-pushing notions have real, true, honest-to-Francis-Bacon scientific validity going for them… and they just don't. What they do have is the support of religious zealots and wannabe theocrats, some of whom (Howard Ahmanson leaps to mind) have supported flat-out Creationism in times past.
| Quote | | All Dembski and ID colleagues are saying is that their are scientific methods to detect intelligent design in nature despite how it got there… |
And they're right—as I noted above, there are scientific methods to detect intelligent design, and there's no reason at all those methods couldn't detect design in nature. The thing is, ID-pushers like Dembski et al are not using any of those scientific methods. Rather, they've come up with bogus non-methods that wow the ignorant and those who are predisposed to believe in God.
| Quote | | The fact that a Creator could have designed through evolution gets lost in the fray from the public's perspective… |
The position God did it, and He used evolution is what's called Theistic Evolution. And if that 'fact' is indeed "lost in the fray from the public's perspective", don't you think people like Ken Ham, who explicitly reject Theistic Evolution in favor of Young-Earth Creationism and say that YEC is the only valid position a Christian can take, have just a tiny bit more to do with that 'fact' than anything real scientists might have said or not said?
| Quote | | …and the evolutionist side is going to look idiotic when someone like Dembski does nail down a solid method for detecting design scientifically. |
"when someone like Dembski does nail down a solid method for detecting design scientifically"? So… you acknowledge that Dembski & Co. have not[b], in fact, "nail[ed] down a solid method for detecting design scientifically" [b]yet. Cool.
| Quote | | I have a hunch it is only a matter of time and if like Miller says, we don't "rescue the argument from design" for science, Dembski and colleagues are going to use scientific proof of an ultimate designer as segway to revert the public to a stronger, young earth creationist view of the universe, like 100 years ago. |
So… you acknowledge that ID's leading lights are, in fact, using ID as a stalking horse to push that good old-time Creationism. Cool.
| Quote | | I heard Dembski at another debate, at Princeston with Lee Silver, briefly mention that if a designer can be detected, then it would throw even the "other" aspects of natural selection into question....to my mind he was speaking even of microevolution. |
Right, right. You acknowledge that ID is an attack aimed at discrediting evolution. Cool.
| Quote | | So the evolutionist side needs to seriously consider that a "designer" of some sort might be a verifiable scientific possibility… |
Dude. Real scientists have "consider[ed] that a 'designer' of some sort might be a verifiable scientific possibility". Real scientists in fields like forensics and archæology are all about 'designers'. What real scientists haven't done, and should continue not to do, is treat the overarchingly vague non-hypothesis somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something as if it was an honest-to-Francis-Bacon scientific theory.
| Quote | | and co-opt it, as Miller puts it, for the service of science. I believe that this can be done by taking the stance that a designer programed life to come about through the physical laws like Miller seems to believe. |
If Miller wants to think that, bully for him. It's not a scientific stance, and Miller knows it's not a scientific stance, but he's welcome to think that if he wants to.
| Quote | | I could be wrong but if evolutionists don't try to bang this point home in the minds of the public, when the ID side comes up with a convincing scientific method to detect design they'll use new found credibility with the public to take them even further back towards creationism. |
What, exactly, do you think real scientists ought to do to combat this threat? Be as specific as you can, please. |
There is a lot here to respond to so I'll try. I think we are underestimating the prospects of being able to scientifically detect real design in biology. Evolution is a fact in my mind, but just because it is doesn't mean that an intelligence couldn't have created through evolution. So either way there is intelligence behind it.
It doesn't matter how the intelligence created the designs in nature and Dembski has repeatedly stated this in his debates I've watched. What simply matters is that you can statistically point to the fact that an organism is "really" designed period. The how and why and all that is irrelevant for these purposes. ID folks don't need to answer the "manufacture" question to serve their agenda, which yes is ultimately to push religion I agree.
You ask for formalized ID theories? Dembski's CSI method is "formalized," albeit wrong at this point. However, that doesn't mean it will stay that way.
On your point about YECs like Ham....yes they have something to do with the misconceptions about the public not viewing evolution as a creative designer force, but the ID movement is different than them and more sophisticated and can have more impact. As a advocate for science, and in order to avoid this just to be safe, I strongly agree with what Miller was said at Chappaqua.
You ask me to be specific about what scientists can do to combat ID. Do exactly, what Miller proposes. Biology needs to acknowledge that there is "real" design in nature for those folks that are religiously inclined and push the possibility that the designer used evolution to create. That way if ID does come up with a scientific method to detect design they won't use is as a spring board to take people toward Ham's view. If it is possible to scientifically detect real design in biology, maybe evolutionists should be the ones doing the research instead of leaving to the Creationists in disguise like Dembski. That way we can tell the world that evolutionists discovered it and that it shows a designer likely created through evolution. Like I said this needs to be taken seriously, not dismissed or underestimated. |
ArborealDescendent, I'm going to accept that your motive is what you say it is, unless you show otherwise. I do think that you're mistaken about some things you said though. For example, because of the beliefs and agendas of religious people, and especially religious zealots, pretty much any concession by evolutionary scientists that nature (including life, life's diversity, etc.) was/is designed-created by an 'intelligent agent' would be used by religious people, or at least by religious zealots, as a 'science-approved' springboard to take people toward their religious view and in some religious zealots' cases that would be the same as Ham's view.
In the case of ID pushers, they claim that they have already "determined design" and they even dig up long dead corpses in their attempts to prove that design was "determined" a long time ago. To them, evolutionary theory is an evil late comer that is out to destroy their religious beliefs and 'true' science. The terms 'ID' and 'intelligent design' are so tainted with theocratic beliefs and agendas that it would be virtually impossible to get non-IDers to accept that 'ID/intelligent design' is a legitimate scientific pursuit.
Even IDers and so-called 'theistic evolutionists' are at odds with each other. That they are at odds with each other, along with the fact that IDers constantly attack evolutionary research, evidence, and explanations, tells me that IDers don't accept that evolution, as described by evolutionary theory, has ever occurred.
I and others have often asked IDers to explain the difference that an 'ID inference' would make when it comes to studying and explaining nature. They claim that it would open new 'avenues of research' but they never point out any avenues of research that would be new.
'ID' is taken seriously by many non-IDers but not as a legitimate scientific pursuit. It's taken seriously as a dishonest and intrusive religious/political agenda.
--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
|
