Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.

In his own words?I don't accept that, "There are only so many ways to say something." I can accept efficiency as a motivation, but not limits to expression, because they're aren't any. Language is infinitely expressive and nuanced.First let me state that I now understand that the plaintiffs and defendants *want* the judge to include their findings verbatim in his ruling, and that therefore Judge Jones did not commit plagiarism or anything remotely resembling it. My apologies.So let me instead use plagiarism as a point of departure. Legal and moral issues are one way to argue against plagiarism, but there's a much better one: you only really know you understand something when you can express it in your own words. I am no longer as convinced as I once was that Judge Jones fully understands the evidence and rationale behind his ruling. Maybe he does, but since the words aren't his I can't be sure of that, and for me that weakens the power of his ruling.AbE: Now I find myself suddenly questioning the inspired ruling from Judge Overton in the Arkansas case of a couple decades ago. Is that just a rewrite of ACLU findings, too?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add closing comment.

Hi NJ,I'm responding to the important points I took from your last few messages in this single message:

1. From the perspective of the evolutionists, you appear to be pushing obstinately onward armed only with misunderstandings and already rebutted arguments. This seems irrational, and in casting about for possible reasons I noticed the title of the thread. I'm going to guess that you'd prefer a different title, perhaps "Intelligent Design is not Science" or some such. Calling it a "Philosophy of Ignorance" is, from a science perspective, a position that can easily be supported (the mere fact that advocates keep ruling out areas of study upon which ID has clear implications is sufficient by itself), it perhaps isn't the best title under which to constructively engage ID advocates. Perhaps the thread originator might consider modifying the title.
   ​
2. You have some confusion about branches of science that people have been trying to help you straighten out, unsuccessfully apparently. For example, in Message 163 you say, "Scientific theory employs branches of science to verify its claims...Theory does not encompass its own branch of science."
   ​
   Branches of science are just artificial and malleable divisions of all of science into subfields. Consider how it would sound if you made the same comment but in a specific context, say, "Evolutionary theory employs biology to verify its claims. Evolutionary theory does not encompass biology." Say what? It's not wrong, I suppose, but whatever idea or concept you're trying to communicate is certainly not clear, and we're all pretty sure this is because a basic misunderstanding lies at the heart of your comments. Whatever you think the structure of science is, you've obviously got it wrong.
   ​
   The fact of the matter is that evolution is a theory of the field of biology. Valid theories must be consistent with the qualities of science, and they are developed within the framework of the scientific method. This is what makes the theory of evolution a valid scientific theory.
   ​
   Branches of science are made up of knowledge and evidence and data, and most importantly, upon theories based upon that knowledge, evidence and data.
   ​
3. Hopefully the Michael Behe issue is now squared away. As Crash has explained, when Behe is doing ID he definitely is not participating in the scientific process.
   ​
4. We understand that you don't believe that mutation and natural selection are sufficient to produce life's diversity, but the population geneticists proved precisely this back in the 1920's when they were forming the grand synthesis between Darwinian evolution and the then budding science of genetics. I am not using the word "proved" lightly. Population genetics is very much a mathematical science. We can discuss the mathematics with you at whatever level of detail you feel comfortable with.
   ​
5. It appears that much of your rejection of the sufficiency of mutation and natural selection derives from a misunderstanding of how it works. Every reproductive event is, in effect, a genetic experiment because it almost always involves mutation which if expressed in the organism will be selected for (or against) by the environment. It isn't a case of whether mutation and natural selection play a role in the ever-changing array of life. It's more a case of how you would ever prevent it from happening.

--Percy

Hi Nosy,Though I'm replying to you, this is actually addressed to NJ.Hi NJ,Here's a quote of George Weber of the Biologic Instituted taken from Ned's link (Intelligent design: The God Lab): Consider, NJ, the implications. IDists evidently think this is the proper order of events when doing science: This is the reason you're having so much difficulty finding scientific evidence for ID: it doesn't exist yet.I wonder where the Biologic Institute plans to submit their papers. Unless they submit them to legitimate scientific journals, it'll be just the same-old, same-old.--Percy

Hi John 10:10,This thread is discussing the scientific evidence for ID. If you'd like to discuss the scientific evidence for evolution then you should find another thread, or propose a new thread over at [forum=-25].--Percy

Aren't memes just an abstraction of data. Aren't they just a framework for interpreting data in the same way that Freud's ego, superego and id were frameworks for interpreting psychological data?In other words, you can't "observe" a meme. Memes are just a way of interpreting and grouping cultural data. They have no actual reality, which is what I think GDR means. (Or if he doesn't mean that, then he should. )--Percy

Science is the study of the natural universe. The objects of scientific study must be observable. It doesn't matter if they're directly or indirectly observable (through their effect on things that are observable), as long as they're observable then they're amenable to scientific study.Ultimately, ID is not science because the designer cannot be natural because of an infinite regression. This has been explained in other threads, but not in this one I don't think, so very briefly, the regression goes like this: Life is too wondrous and complex to have come about naturally, so there must have been a designer. But since life is too wondrous and complex to have come about naturally, the designer must have had a designer. And his designer must have had a designer, as must the designer before him, and so on and so on ad infinitum. Something must have created the first designer, and this is where you leave the realm of the natural and of science. Since the regression is unavoidable, ID is not science.This regression is so fatal to the concept of ID that not only does it say that ID is not science, it says that ID cannot be science. In other words, even if evidence were found that seemed to indicate a designer, we would have to discard this as a scientific possibility because the infinite regression leads to the supernatural.IDists could avoid the infinite regression by not using their primary argument, that life is too wondrous and complex to have come about naturally. It then wouldn't matter whether the designer of life on earth had a designer or not, since the designer could have come about naturally. In other words, they could concede that complex life can come about naturally, but argue that there is evidence to indicate that that isn't the case for life here on earth. But I have a feeling IDists won't be taking this approach any time soon.The other reasons why ID is not science have to do with the lack of any evidence that goes beyond how wondrous and complex life is, and this paragraph is short because after you've noted the lack of evidence there's really nothing to discuss.Memes are different than ID. I have no idea whether Dawkins would agree, but I would argue that memes belong to the field of psychology, and there are very good reasons why psychology is classified as a soft science. Whereas the evidence for psychology is observable, making it science, and whereas it is often very mathematical, making it rigorous in some aspects, there is still a huge interpretational component.The field of evolutionary biology is not split up into Linaeists and Darwinists and IDists and Haekelists. While of course there are a huge number of specific details of evolution that are widely debated, that life on earth evolved through the mechanisms Darwin identified is universally agreed upon. And while there are naturally a number of problematic species and fossils that defy deterministic classification, the vast majority of species and fossils fit neatly into a classification system about which there is broad agreement.But the field of psychology reflects its large interpretational component by being split into a variety of areas, each with its own following and with many psychologists adhering to their own particular mix of these schools of thought. There are Freudians (small in number today), behavioralists, cognitivists, existentialists, gestaltists, socialists, structuralists and transactionalists, to name a few.This doesn't mean that memes, as part of psychology, do not qualify as science, but it does mean that it will be very difficult to reach any agreement on a classification system, or on much of anything, actually, which is why it remains so controversial.--Percy

You individually might not, but IDists in general certainly do. This is the primary reason why they say things like, "We cannot know the nature of the designer or how he designed." I hope this raises red flags for you all over the place, just as it would if evolutionists were to say, "We cannot know the processes that produced evolution nor their modes of operation, but we know evolution occurred."There is no simple way out of this box that IDists have designed for themselves, as your own attempt makes clear: Science is the study of the observable universe. We can't study parts of our universe that aren't observable (directly or indirectly), and we certainly can't study anything outside our universe. If the designer is outside this universe, as you suggest, then it cannot be an object of scientific study, and so ID isn't science. Oh, an idea is physical alright, and so is a meme. The problem is that science is not presently capable of examining ideas in terms of their material representation within the brain. Similar to the way we abstract about quarks and other quantum phenomena that are only indirectly observable, with memes we can only accept an idea as abstraction piled upon abstraction to a height far above an idea's physical realization within an individual's brain. It's certainly not an either/or situation. Ideas have a physical representation in the brain that is inaccessible to our current science, so we can only understand ideas on a metaphysical level. It would be incorrect to conclude that because our current level of expertise doesn't allow an understanding at the underlying physical level that therefore that physical level does not exist. All evidence we have indicates that ideas are expressions of physical activity in the brain, we just can't figure out the physical level at this point in time. We might never figure it out.--Percy

Iceage already responded to this, saying, "When you look at the long journey of human discovery, ascribing to God(s) the explanation of phenomenon has a terrible track record - so why is it a reasonable candidate now."I just want to emphasize how incredibly significant a point this is. Others have alluded to the same thing with examples such as ancient associations of thunder and lightning with gods and so forth. The history of "We don't know, therefore God" is one of constant retreat. Those who like to make arguments that begin with, "Science can't even explain (fill in the blank)...," have to find new arguments every year as science learns more and more. It will always be that way because that is just the nature of science. Every question that science answers just raises new questions.Confusing science and religion derives from faulty thinking. Science is a way of getting one kind of answer about the world, and religion is a way of getting another. Science doesn't deliver spiritual answers, and religion doesn't deliver scientific answers. The problem primarily stems from the mistaken belief that religion can produce scientifically valid answers through means having nothing to do with the methods of science. It's like believing you can apply the rules of sentence structure to calculus and get the same type of answers, which of course you can't, let alone correct answers.--Percy

I think many here would agree with this, but it is important to make clear how you're using the word "why". You're not using it in the sense of "What was the immediate cause of such-and-such", which would turn it into a scientific question. You're using it in its spiritual sense, as in "Why do bad things happen to good people?" I think many here would agree with this, too.The thread's title states the case too strongly for my taste, but it's a response to claims that ID provides scientific answers. It doesn't. It's a religious view.--Percy

Well, yes, of course. But science isn't about the search for truth in any spiritual sense. It's a search for how the universe works, not why the universe is or why it's the way it is. And being a scientist does not in any way preclude seeking spiritual truths.Any scientist or science-oriented person who tells you that science says there is no God is full of bunk. Even Dawkins will tell you that the God he thinks science most rules out is the fundamentalist God, the one who fundamentalists believe created the world around 6000 years ago and who wiped out almost all life on earth with a great flood around 5000 years ago. The evidence clearly contradicts this. But there's no evidence that contradicts even a very personal God who cares about us and answers our prayers.Too many sincerely religious people seem to view it as an either/or, and if they want to insist that their God tells them the earth is young and modern geology is a result of a world wide flood, then I guess it is an either/or and it's just tough patooties for them because all the evidence from the natural world (a natural world that is God's creation) says they're dead wrong. But there is no contradiction between religion and science for those who don't insist that their religion makes accurate scientific statements.--Percy

Hi Mystic,With only a few messages left in this thread, there isn't time to begin a discussion of the nature of science, but I will say just a little.Science is able to make progress through replication, which means that any qualified scientist can repeat an experiment and obtain the same result. Ideas or theories that can be verified through repeatable experiments (e.g., relativity) are accepted, while those that cannot are rejected (e.g., cold fusion). Observation of and experiment with the supernatural (however one does this I don't know) does not lead to replicatable results, and hence has never produced any scientifically acceptable theories.--Percy