|
Author
|
Topic: Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
Message 1 of 301 (365633)
11-23-2006 4:45 PM
|
|
|
Some of you may have managed to catch some of the videos that came out of Beyond Belief 2006. Neil deGrasse Tyson was a speaker and he raised an interesting point that I'd like to bring forward for discussion here at EvC. I'm sure most of us have heard Newton being referenced as invoking an intelligent designer. "I am compelled to ascribe ye frame of this Systeme to an intelligent Agent" - Principia And clearly, since Newton was one of the greatest geniuses that ever lived and published...we should give some credit to the idea. Here is Tyson's argument in written format, if you have a few hundred MB on your hard drive, you can watch the full argument. They call Tyson 'the Revererend' for good reason, the talk is not stuffy or boring. Here goes. Ptolemy circa AD 150 Ptolemy codified the geocentric universe that became the standard model until Copernicus and Galileo. Ptolemy's work was named, Almagest. Ptolemy reached a boundary between what was known and what was unknown and in the margins of this great book he wrote:
Ptolemy writes: I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia It seems clear that at the limits of knowledge, people can find themselves having an almost religious experience. This, in its two millennia old way, is an invocation of intelligent design. As truth seekers, it needs to be accepted that some of our greatest scientists and thinkers have done this very same thing. Galileo circa 1615. Famously wrote:
Galileo writes: the Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go and
But I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use An early rebuke of the argument of design, you might say. Not long after this, came Newton however. Newton circa 1687 Newton was a genius of the highest order. Nobody can realistically call his brilliance into question when it came to describing the world around him. In the Principia he covers the laws of motion and gravity - which he managed to codify before he reached 26 years old! Some interesting points: When he talks about motion: no reference to God. When he talks of his 'two body force', no reference to God. There was no need to invoke God. Newton clearly understood the subjects he was writing on, and God wasn't needed to explain any of it. The problem came when he tried to expand the two body problem and discuss multiple bodies (eg the solar system), at which point it gets very difficult. Using this simple approach Newton was unable to generate a stable model for the solar system. Newton couldn't get a stable model, and he reaches a limit, a point past which he can't explain. He says:
Newton writes: The six primary planets are revolving about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolving about the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets;”but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions...This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being And there we have Newton, invoking Intelligent Design when he got stuck on a difficult problem. This is important for two reasons. One I will get to in a moment, but the first is that we can say that invoking an intelligent designer isn't inherently the action of a stupid man. When you get to that limit - even the smartest among us, find the temptation to invoke a supreme designer. Tyson makes an excellent observation here. Even if we manage to increase science understanding in the public - how can we expect them to do any better than the greatest minds that have walked about this earth? Huygens circa 1696 Another brilliant scientist, and well known for his work on Saturn. When he talks about the motions of the planets. No problem. The moons of Jupiter. No problem either. The rings around Saturn. Totally fine. Life. Err, err...God?
Huygens writes: I suppose no body will deny but that there's somewhat more of Contrivance, somewhat more of Miracle in the production and growth of Plants and Animals than in lifeless heaps of inanimate Bodies. . . . For the finger of God, and the Wisdom of Divine Providence, is in them much more clearly manifested than in the other. No need for a designer in planetary orbits here, but life? The invocation begins! Laplace circa 1799 Remember the problem Newton had? Laplace solved it. It took a long time, but it got solved. When asked what role God had in the regulation of the heavens, he reputedly replied:
Laplace writes: I have no need of that hypothesis Here is the important thing - Laplace was not smarter than Newton. Not by a long shot, in my opinion. How was able to see further than Newton, by standing on his shoulders? Well, by disregarding the need for a designer. The work Laplace did to solve Newton's dilemma, was well within Newton's capabilities as a mathematician. Newton's invocation inhibited him from solving a problem that remained unsolved for two centuries. Laplace had shown the solar system could remain stable for longer than Newton was able, by shedding the baggage of a supreme designer of sorts. Invoking an intelligent designer is a sure fire way to ensure your discovery stops. Perhaps one day, this God of the Gaps, will be a correct argument. Maybe at the forefront of some scientific endevour, God an intelligent designer is sat waiting to be discovered. As scientists though, we cannot allow the following reasoning to take place: phenomenon x cannot be explained using the methods we have developed today. The only other explanation then, is that an intelligent agent is somehow behind it It might be true, but if we do that, we could potentially set our discoveries back decades. Essentially, you've stopped doing science and you have taken to waiting for someone else to carry on the work and try to answer the puzzles. Not only that, but the argument itself is massively arrogant. When stumbling upon something you don't understand, invoking this argument is like saying "I don't understand it, if I can't understand it, nobody on earth can understand it. What's more, nobody who will ever live after me will be able to understand it. A designer, therefore, is the best solution." The current ID movement claim a lot of things aren't explainable by current phenomenon, when they are, but that is not the point. That particular movement have a political agenda to push. Besides the political motivations and scientific errors, we still cannot allow science to accept 'Intelligent Design'. It has been part of science before, and it turned out to be straight forward ignorance. If the greatest minds, if those that understand the problems better than anybody else in the world, if they say that the only way to explain something is by means of an intelligent designer - we have to reject it simply because it has happened before. Newton invoked ID, and about 100 years later it was shown to be unnecessary. Therefore, Intelligent Design, by trying to demonstrate its truth by pointing out the supposed limits of our understanding, is not a philosophy of discovery (science), but a philosophy of ignorance. It is the philosophy that, we don't know how this could have happened so we'll just say a designer did it and draw a line under it. Tyson makes a final point I'll bring forward here. This philosophy should be taught in science. It is a real pit fall that great scientists in the past have managed to fall into and it has hampered their science as a result. We should warn prospective scientists of the future of the easy temptation ID offers, and why we should remove such explanations from our scientific understanding because it has been shown to get in the way. Intelligent design is a real phenomenon, it happens to people, something happens to them and they conclude ID, right at the limits of their understanding.
There is a written copy of Tyson's argument, but the server is offline. For the moment you can look at the google cache version. I make no claim at being able to express this idea better than he - but I think I managed to capture the essence enough for discussion here. This should probably go in Intelligent Design forum.
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
Hi Mike, I'm sure some scientists have done this in a way you described, but look at Newton again:
Newton writes: ...but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions Newton is actually saying not that it is so wondrous it inspires a feeling that God must be involved. Instead he is saying that it's so complicated it can't be done without God. That physical laws simply cannot account for it. That because Newton cannot conceive of a solution, there isn't one. I'm sure when most people say, I can't understand it so god did it, is not arrogant - just ignorant/naive. For a scientist to do so, is arrogant. Maybe we can forgive Newton and the like, though. They did not have themselves as examples not to follow. As Blake said, If others had not been foolish, we should be so. For a modern day scientist to say it, knowing that major enigmas of times in the past were shown to be without the need for an Intelligent Agent, is arrogant in my opinion. Remember: Principia was not Newton's journal, or his private letters. It was a science treatise, one of the most influential pieces of modern science ever. The non-arrogant way that Newton could have taken, would be:
Newton II writes: The six primary planets are revolving about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolving about the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets;”I cannot conceive how mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. You can have a hundred, a thousand, a million specific circumstances where God isn't directly the cause, but overall he still can be. Well that will only be an issue if/when we tackle the final causes of everything. Until then GOTG keeps getting pushed back to less and less causes and doesn't serve as an adequate explanation, and indeed tends to serve as a hindrance to scientific discovery. It doesn't matter if a scientist is correct when he declares that 'God did it'. Science can't stop investigating it, because look what has happened before. We can't afford to be wrong in a God solution because it could cost us centuries of development in a certain field. History shows that humans are easily tempted into ID conclusions, even the smartest ones. It's not a problem that a theist can be mistaken, it's that scientists should try and avoid the trap, we should teach our children the trap. It can happen to the best of us, and if it does, our scientific adventure in that field can come to a halt. I'm sure its possible that it isn't necessary for the discovery to end, but it remains a real danger that adopting the ID hypothesis will simply distract us from reaching the solution.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by mike the wiz, posted 11-24-2006 10:07 AM | | mike the wiz has replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 6 of 301 (365736)
11-24-2006 11:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by RickJB
11-24-2006 5:04 AM
|
|
Politics of ID
I had a short paragraph in there about politics, and Tyson touches on it too. The modern ID movement attempts to show that we are on the boundary of knowledge so that others will invoke a deity to explain things for them (evidenced by the 'Wedge', but if I'm being unfair, there is plenty of evidence for the first half of the statement) Most of what modern ID does is to say "This can't be explained". It doesn't matter if it can be or can't be, as long as they can convincingly say it, people will believe it, and buy the relevant books/DVDs whatever. In Newton et al's case, there was a genuine mystery to be solved. But whether or not there really is a mystery there remains the temptation. Just the perception of a mystery can invoke an Intelligent Agent in our minds. I suppose this a social animal thing, but let's not go down that alleyway today. This invocation is an illusion to be avoided because it has a tendency to blind us to discovery, often when we might be standing on discovery's precipice.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by RickJB, posted 11-24-2006 5:04 AM | | RickJB has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
I don't know. Maybe he just couldn't conceive of anything. Do you think he would encourage finding a natural explanation rather than a supernatural one? We know he couldn't conceive of anything; his hubris lead him to declare that This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And yes, I really think that if someone had half of a natural explanation worked out that looked promising to him, he'd complete the work and then prove it from first principles. That's the kind of guy he was.
People want God to be found, or at[ ]least his fingerprints. They want that to be seen as a valid position. A poetic way of putting it. This it seems to so common that it should be taken seriously, not just a phenomenon made public by small group of religious people. The case is quite compelling, in my view, to teaching it as a pitfall in science, something to be careful of. And in a wider scope, you're also right. Some people want God's fingerprints so bad they try and 'legitimize' that feeling by going into science. Its like Newton in reverse. He started out peeling away at the understanding of the universe, got to a point he couldn't explain and resorted to ID. In their case they start with ID/God and try and go into science and add layers of misunderstanding to the universe in order to find somewhere for God to hide. When looked at in that cynical light, it is quite a theo-demeaning endeavour.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 11-24-2006 12:54 PM | | mike the wiz has replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
Newton is mistaken and you guys
This quote is not an early rebuke of design argument. Instead Gallileo is saying that the God who has given us these senses, also wanted us to use them. In other words, God wants us to seek His glory by performing science and try to see how things work. This is Gallileo FOR design. Of course Galileo believed there was a cosmic designer, it says so right in the quote. What the rebuke is, is saying that we shouldn't allow the good book to provide us with insight into science. It is warning us to use the evidence to reach conclusions about the universe, not what the Bible says to be true.
Galileo continues writes: He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or necessary demonstrations. This must be especially true in those sciences of which but the faintest trace (and that consisting of conclusions) is to be found in the Bible. Of astronomy; for instance, so little is found that none of the planets except Venus are so much as mentioned, and this only once or twice under the name of "Lucifer." If the sacred scribes had had any intention of teaching people certain arrangements and motions of the heavenly bodies, or had they wished us to derive such knowledge from the Bible, then in my opinion they would not have spoken of these matters so sparingly in comparison with the infinite number of admirable conclusions which are demonstrated in that science. Far from pretending to teach us the constitution and motions of the heavens and other stars, with their shapes, magnitudes, and distances, the authors of the Bible intentionally forbore to speak of these things, though all were quite well known to them. Now it isn't a rebuke on modern ID, because that pretends it isn't about God. It is a rebuke on those that would use the Bible as a reason to believe something about the universe - including whether or not we were designed by a God. The comment was a remark against the modern ID movement which is clearly religious.
Do you not see that Newton believes in equations to explain all this. He is not questioning the idea of more equations governing more than what he has figured out. BUT he is questioning the idea that ALL this randomly organized itself into what we see. Yes - he reaches the limit of his understanding and he argues it must have been God. And yet, Newton's issue is later solved using science.
It is too bad that so many people misinterpret what Newton is clearly saying. Newton is not invoking God because he cannot explain things further. He is invoking God as the originator of everything. So you are saying that he isn't invoking God to explain anything, just everything? Oh. OK. That clearly isn't a design argument at all. Sorry, I'll put my nice hat back on now. Whatever you think he is attempting to explain with God, it is a design argument. The birth of the solar system, the stability of the solar system - is irrelevant to what he is doing right in front of us. You don't think invoking God as an explanation is a design argument?
Lets perform two science experiments: I love thought experiments!
since life cannot come from innate matter alone Woah, where did that conclusion come from? You forgot the part of the experiment where we performed every single biochemical experiment that could ever be done.
and information does not assemble by itself by chance. Then you forgot the part where you define information, then run every single information based experiment possible. Your science so far would be comparable to this: Observation: Radios are built in radio factories. Conclusions Since no radio factories existed before the radio - the radio has always existed. or better: Observation: Labradors come from Labradors Conclusion: Since Labradors cannot come about by evolutionary means, they were the ancestral dog kind.
Even though information has not been observed to come from chance, and life has never been shown to come from non-living things, WE CANNOT invoke an intelligent cause for them. Nobody is saying we cannot invoke an intelligent cause for them. I am saying that rather than just invoking an intelligent cause, why not continue performing biochemical experiments earnestly trying to account for how replicators can form and how they pass on heredity. Here is my thought experiment: Obervation: I can't understand how x works. x is completely baffling to me. I have no explanation for x. Conclusion: x must be the result of some intelligent and deliberate agency. Or we can try this one: Obervation: I can't understand how x works. x is completely baffling to me. I have no explanation for x. Conclusion: I'll need to study up on the maths, perhaps even develop a new mathematical branch to help me understand it. I'll develop some testable hypothesis, experiment. GET MORE DATA. Fit it into my growing framework of understanding. Have my peers get in on the act, criticize their work, let them do likewise. GET MORE DATA. Arrive at a theory which is not falsified by what data we have gathered so far. Use the theory to make a prediction on what new data we might find. GET MORE DATA. If new data is in line with prediction, celebrate. If I am unable to develop a framework of understanding, hope one of my peers does and grudgingly applaud if they develop one.
so.. which is the ignorant followers of anti-science?
you pick. I vote for the option that says 'Stop looking - you won't find an answer. It was God.' Imagine if we did that when it came to disease? Well - I guess we can imagine that. I'd rather have the germ theory of disease than the god theory of disease. I'd rather look for the x theory of abiogenesis rather than settle for god theory of abiogenesis. One of them is the philosophy of discovery. One is the philosophy of ignorance. I guess you can pick - though I suspect you think ID is the philosophy of discovery.
One thing we can say is: Newton was mistaken. What he said couldn't be explained in mechanical terms was later explained in mechanical terms. I'm mistaken all the time too - its no big existential crisis for me. I consider Newton a genius but not perfect.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by Confidence, posted 11-26-2006 8:21 PM | | Confidence has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
Re: Newton mistaken or.. You guys.
conclusions reached in the Bible should be used in science. Could you let me know where he states this? It isn't in any of the quotes so far discussed, that's all.
But since God is the powerful being we so believe, He must be able to communicate to us, and able to do it well. You forget one thing. The possibility that God created the universe, communicated it to us clearly, and that the books compiled in The Holy Bible are absolutely nothing to do with that communication. The other possibility is that God, having made the universe, was capable of communicating to us well, but didn't. Wanting instead for us to figure it out for ourselves. Any number of possibilities exist. I'm all for continuing to investigate rather than relying on 'this specific god did it as described in this specific piece of Bronze age writing'. It is such a defeatest position, it is a position of wilful ignorance.
Bear in mind that to make the first living thing, natural selection could not work. It is then that the randomness really plays the role that most people forget about. Of course, that is effectively saying that evolution doesn't rely purely on chance, but only the first living thing. That means that potentially 3.5 billion years of evolution is non-chance based. So, the first life? Who can say what kind of chance we are looking at here? We don't know what our initial conditions, so we cannot calculate these probabilities - it could be inevitable for all we know.
And Galileo was mistaken To close on a cheap rhetorical trick: Galileo mistaken or...you Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by Confidence, posted 11-27-2006 3:08 PM | | Confidence has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
Science versus other philosophy
Hi Mike, Can I just say that it is a pleasure to receive well crafted responses such as this? You have a way with words and clearly understand the issues at stake. There may have been some communication error on my behalf that I hope to clear up now. It is perfectly fine for a human being to say "God did it", or variants thereof. It is perfectly fine for a scientist who is also human to do that very thing. No problems with anyone who does that. What I take issue with, is when people/scientists try to state that this conclusion is scientific. OR when scientists have a God Did It conclusion and consider that to be the final answer on the subject. I think once you have decided that God has done it, it becomes incredibly easy to stop looking so hard for answers - you already have one you are philosophically happy with. The philosophical conclusion that God did something is anathema to scientific discovery. Even if, at any given time, it turns out to be a correct conclusion, science should not stop until it has either demonstrated that that is the case (probably not going to happen) or finds another explanation. If it can't find one, it should still look for one. Science is a philosophy of no final answers, nothing is conclusive in science, so any conclusion that states something absolutely is a conclusion which is saying 'stop looking for a better answer'. That is something human, but should be warned against to journeymen scientists. As a human, they might be satisfied, but as a scientists it is their obligation to never be satisfied. Not only can you infer God, it is something that is done by millions, and we should not ignore that. Scientists can do it too - but in so doing they must not stop asking. Had Newton continued to ask, he probably would have solved the problem, it was well within his powers to do so. However, he chose to stop asking and was scientifically satisfied with an ID invocation. This is bad.
The problem with God, for me, is that he's like a theory that fits all of the facts, but just can't be proven to be the correct theory. Precisely. The problem is that we can never be sure the God theory is right this time. We know for a fact that the God theory has been invoked erroneously time and again, and has stopped a scientist from going further.
A theory that answers for all of the variables, or explains them well, is atleast one worthy of investigation. Even if it's only a personal investigation. It is worth investigation, but it has a problem. How can you know if God did it, or something you can't explain did it? Is the sun actually Ra's chariot coursing through the sky, plunging into the underworld to fight evil every night? Or is it a nuclear reactor 120 billion metres away? Personally, it has the same problems. How does one know that any revelation is independent of the thinker? We can say for sure that plenty of revelations are wrong, because they are contradictory. It is fine to ponder these things, but any conclusion that is reached simply ends up being little more than opinion. Science is about explaining things. We can't explain things based on our opinions. The world works regardless of how we think it works, but science allows us to do practical things and learn about our universe in a way that we can have some confidence in. I don't rate my chances with opinion. God, if one exists, is probably smarter than me. Thus: it knows the quandary well. I trust that any god that does exist will not expect me to accept my cultural opinion (religious faith in whatever has been told to me) as a final answer. My personal opinion is that faith is another word for giving up being critical. I don't take people I meet on faith when they say they have a bridge for sale for example. Nor do I take on faith what some people I will never meet say about a metaphorical bridge (salvation) that requires I change my personal morals. My opinion in science is that giving up being critical is anathema to discovery. And as such faith should not enter into a scientific conclusion. ID, is simply asserting that a Designer does exist and was involved because as people we cannot explain something. As such, we should warn students away from that. Scientists are always working at the forefront, they are testing and discovering new things. If they cannot solve how a particular bacteria manages to metabolise some chemical - they cannot say that an undetectable entity is fiddling with things and expect that to be the final word. They might privately think it, but if they stop looking, it is just saying 'I give up. It can't be solved'. I say that it is the philosophy of ignorance because if everyone followed the philosophy we would be ignorant of many things today, and will be ignorant of many other things in future. The less people rely on the ID crutch, the more discovery is made possible. Thus my conclusion that science is the philosophy of discovery, and ID is the philosophy of ignorance.
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 29 of 301 (366778)
11-29-2006 11:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by Confidence
11-28-2006 11:52 PM
|
|
Re: God as author, and his intentions with the Bible
I believe naturalism is a philosophy(religion) that is never conclusive because it assumes there is no God. But not science. I'm surprised that one such as you made a statement like this. The reason why we continue in science is not because there are no conclusions, but because there is so much depth, intricacies, beauty just waiting to be explored. Are you saying that science is not inherently tentative?
For instance, we can conclude that atoms exist. We have observed them, but we can continue farther, electrons and protons exist. But what makes up protons and electrons? We haven't really seen atoms. We can certainly conclude that they exist - but that conclusion isn't inherently final. We can use it to build our base of knowledge more and more. At any time, it could be shown to be false. Given the usefulness of the concept it may be that something else exists at that level that gives us similar results to atoms, but that some other model explains things even better.
Who knows how much farther we can go into the nature of the basic elements that we know right now, or the limits of the universe? Laws of physics, mathematics. The weather, the human mind. All wonders of creation to be explored. I take it then, that you are pro-evolution being taught to our students. We wouldn't want to bar discovery just because some people think that God did it. We want to go into the nature and limits of the universe right to the core, so we need to teach children what we already know, so that maybe they can add to that knowledge base.
Just a reminder that the Creator might not take to well to have His handy work being attributed to randomness. Or whatever forces other than Him you might attribute it to. And a reminder that it might not take too well to its handy work being attributed to some bronze age superstition. It might not take too well to us psychologically ceasing discovery because we don't want to upset some fiction we made up. Since we don't know what this creator is, we cannot know for sure what will upset it - if anything. If it is Yahweh, then I'm sure he'll be really annoyed...but the level of annoyance from this creator entity depends on its capacity to be annoyed and how absurd and petty it is. Edited by Modulous, : childlike spelling error Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by Confidence, posted 11-28-2006 11:52 PM | | Confidence has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
Re: Deep misgivings
You seem to be ascribing Creationist traits to ID which is odd. About the only thing they agree on is that evolution is false. ID makes no attempt to unmask who or what the Designer is, whereas, creationists attempt to tie the Bible into its science. If anything, they model after Ptolemy's beliefs. They aren't satisfied with "Goddidit" any more than you would. The argument from design has been a theological argument for centuries/millenia. Classically the same arguments that are used today to conclude 'ID' were used to conclude 'God' in the past. The only difference is that the name of the protagonist of the story has become anonymized. As you may or may not know, of Pandas and People was originally about a 'creator' and 'creationism'. Before publishing they basically did a global search/replace with the appropriate terms for 'designer' and 'intelligent design'. The two are self-evidently synonymous, one is trying to mask its religious roots. All they did was go from the specific to the general.
There is nothing to distinguish ID from any other philosophy of science aside from the fact that one group believes everything comes from nothing, and the other seeks to find patterns stemming from a higher cognizance. No, science doesn't believe everything comes from nothing. Science has not yet been able to provide us where everything came from and scientists continue to use the rigorous method to continue to search for what answers they can find.
We should remember that such things as Intelligent Design, evolution, Big Bang theory, string theory, etc aren't branches of science. They employ branches of science in order to corroborate or incorporate their philosophical view from the whole of science. Not quite true. Intelligent design certainly cherry picks elements of science that it feels it agrees with and disregards those that disagree with it to corroborate their philosophical views. However, the others fundamentally differ in that they can be falsified by some evidence. The others are scientific, Intelligent Design is pseudoscientific. It is a subtle distinction, but an important one.
And saying that we cannot understand something doesn't mean we have to reduce all of life to meaninglessness. Its okay to say, "I don't know." Its also okay to say, "This is what I believe, based on this and that." And nobody is saying that it is not Ok to believe x or y. And nobody is reducing all of life to meaninglessness. Those beliefs however should not be considered scientific, and many beliefs act as barriers to discovery - which we should be careful about.
But that's not what ID does. It says, "Whoa, look at all this patterning, look at this order, look at this configuration. This clearly appears to be intended, and thus, designed." That's an inference. And if somebody wants to say, "No, no, no, that is mere happenstance." Either option is inferential. Really, why such a fuss over our own views unless there really was some truth to it? I'm aware of what the argument from design says. However that is not science. Making an inference of that nature is not scientific. It is simply saying 'I don't know how order/confirguration managed to get here. Since it appears intentional, it must be designed'. You can call that inference or reason or what have you. It isn't science, though, which is a special type of inference/reasoning. You cannot make an inference from a base of one. We only have one example of life. We do not know if it was designed by an intelligent agent or evolved without an intelligent agent. We cannot infer that since one example of life is a mystery, therefore life is designed. That is not science. Nor can we compare life with designed objects because designed objects generally don't self-replicate. Thus ID is as an evidence-free inference with biology as it was with the solar system orbits.
Then what is your objection to ID? The thrust of the argument seeks to marry science and philosophy. Actually, the thrust of the argument acts as a wedge. You may have noticed that the bulk of ID argumentation is not the modern ID movement. That only took up a small amount of time in my OP. I was talking about the very human trend of reaching the frontier of understanding and, instead of braving on, stopping and saying 'this is far too amazing - it can't be explainable in natural terms, it was a great designer.'. Remember that Newton got to this point, made the same argument that modern ID makes essentially. There is no way this could have come about by natural means because of reason x, therefore Design. A century or two later and somebody comes along and shows that his reasoning was completely wrong. Time and again, humans have fallen into the ID trap when the going got tough, and we should teach our prospective new scientists to steer as clear as they can from ID in their professional career, even if they choose to accept the philosophy in their personal career.
Its a numbers game, Modulous. Its a game of odds. ID claims that there is no way you can get A from B, without first having C at your disposal. The competing theory posits that C is all you need to know, and that A an B are merely superfluous elements to add in, as its inconsequential to why C is what it is. Well, not quite. ID says that phenomenon X is unanswerable by science. Since it is an unsolvable problem, the only answer that makes sense is that some kind of intelligent agent is somewhat or entirely responsible for phenomenon x. Historically we find that phenomenon x gets solved not by deducing a designer but continual investigation. Maybe an x will come that will never be solvable, but science cannot let that stop it. It has to continuously delve and and falsify and discover. ID is happy to stop and say, 'no way - it's too hard - I'm happy with the God hypothesis'.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-04-2006 12:31 AM | | Hyroglyphx has replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
ID focuses on biology
There is a feeling of dread within the secular science community. But their dread is unwarranted because here is nothing threatening science here. Nothing at all. Nothing can threaten science. It is simply logically impossible. However - science education is under threat. That leads to the scientific dominance of America being under threat. Scientists are passionate about science and education - they have generally spent a lot of time in education about science - so when the education system is threatened, they speak out. It is entirely rational.
Therefore, its clear that this aversion towards ID is strictly philosophical. Atheists have grown accustomed to total domination of the field of science for the last 100, give or take, years. This aversion bespeaks of something far more insidious at work in their minds. It is probably trivial to say that something is philosophical. It is nothing to do with atheism, however. It is about rational thought and the rejection of dogma. As above - the aversion is to the politicization of ID, of its undermining scientific education. Naturally, that is founded no the philosophy that discovery and knowledge seeking is fundamentally important - and that a good science education is vital to this. Interestingly, the vast majority of evolutionary biologists simply ignore ID, yet a great majority (if not all) ID and creation scientists have a highly vocal opposition to evolution. Do you apply the insidious mind theory to them equally?
There is this growing sentiment that "anything" related to God is immediately ruled out of bounds. The sentiment is that you can't God outside of the four walls of a church. That's hokum and that's suppression. Actually, there is a growing sentiment that dogmatic belief should be equally challenged. Whether it be dogmatic nationalism or dogmatic belief in the FSM. When belief shapes the way you you view the world, it leads to policies born of dogma - and policies born of dogma are often harmful. Much better to make policies based on reasoning based on all the evidence.
Not quite true. Intelligent design certainly cherry picks elements of science that it feels it agrees with and disregards those that disagree with it to corroborate their philosophical views.
Such as?
That's a whole topic in its own right. In keeping with standards of substantiation here: homology cherry pick. In that example IDists insist that '3/4 of the [essential] flagellum proteins are “unique”, i.e. do not share homologies with other proteins.' It is actually 5%. The evidence is out there, but they relied on each other's works as evidence and ignoted the massive bulk of evidence which clearly showed the contrary (and is easily accessible).
. Now, looking at the science behind it, which best supports Ockamm's Razor? The principle that we shouldn't invoke unknown and unnecessary entities to explain something? We can see this simply with three propositions. P1: The universe self exists. P2: The universe was created by God. God self exists. P3: The universe was created by God. God was created by the Invisible Pink Uniform. The Invisible Pink Unicorn self exists. Which one do you propose is more parsimonious?
It doesn't speak about the mysteries, it speaks about the things that we already know about. Anything beyond that is just theorizing, which, consequently, no one seems to have a problem with so long as it entails Big Bang, String theory, evolution, etc. Why do you secularists get to monopolize on the inference of unknown variables and theists don't? Nobody is stopping anybody from making whatever inferrences they choose. If it is going to be a scientific inferrence, it needs to follow a certain formula. An important part of that formula is falsifiable. If theists/IDists can propose a falsifiable entity existing that was behind it all, then things might be a little more amicable for them in science. However, theists insist that God is unfalsifiable and IDists refuse to discuss the Designer.
If this is what you have reduced the ID movement to, then this is what the secular argument is tantamount to: There is no God. Rule out anything that might be inferred to be intentional because that couldn't possibly be the answer. Then you sorely misunderstand. The secular argument is. There may be a God, or djinn, or domovoi. We should be highly skeptical of claims of intentional acts that precede known entities that can demonstrate intent. Demand actual evidence of this entities existence before entertaining that this entity might be behind phenomenon x.
So basically you are applauding the maxim that people shouldn't follow the evidence where it leads, but rather, rule out anything even remotely akin to supernaturalism as a priori? That, sir, isn't science. That's just pure bias. I'm saying that you should be very careful, as a scientist, to avoid the biases that are the result of being human. Inferring someone smarter than you is behind some difficult puzzle you are working, is perfectly natural. However, we have solid evidence to demonstrate that such an inferrence frequently turns out to be an illusion. It looked real at the time, but looking back it is nought but a shadow. Thus, with this experience remember: Don't let your own feelings about how it was done, cloud your investigations. Carry on forwards! Try to falsify your own beliefs! The spirit of discovery is bold, but it is frightening. We should warn students of some of the perils on the journey.
Insoluble problems may only appear as such. Design seems axiomatic to me That insolvable problems only appear as such is my entire point. Because there may be no satisfying natural explanation for something does not lead to the conclusion that it must have a supernatural explanation.
. All that ID is saying is that something of Cognizance is behind all of this intricacy. That's it. It doesn't emasculate science. It doesn't just throw its arms in the air and give up. The methodology is one and the same. We investigate natural phenomenon in the same way as the counterpart would. The conclusion is the only real difference.
Unfortunately, the investigation methods are dramatically different. I know 'all that ID' is saying. But let's not forget the biggest message they are pushing:- That evolution cannot account for it. Indeed - that is essentially all they are saying.
No, it isn't. That is beyond an unfair mischaracterization. ID'ists are tired of being slandered and mischaracterized by a population completely under the radar of what's going on and those fanatically imbued by strict naturalism. I thought we lived in the Democratic world were tolerance of others is supposed to be sought in all cases and that suppression is viewed negatively.
Science is not a democracy. You are free to say what you like - but you are not free from criticism for what you say. It is an imperfect meritocracy. Efforts to get lies/falsehoods/erroneous conclusions into the class rooms will not be tolerated. No more than holocaust denial will be if they try and get it taught.
I cut a lot of this out because the server is struggling at the moment. Most of it is ID apologetics and not addressing the historical reality of the design inferrence; how it has shown to be wrong time and time again. You have retreated the Designer to his supernatural root. The last of the gaps - why is there something rather than nothing...why is there a reality? I'm not attacking that inferrence here. That is a matter, as you say, that may never be solved. If ID focussed on that question it would either be a branch of cosmology and be doing complicated relativity and quantum physics or it would be philosophy. Let us remember, then, that modern ID concentrates on biology. We should warn students that trying to explain biological life is difficult, but they should not settle on a design inferrence. It might be that positive evidence emergences for a designer, supernatural or otherwise. However, the reasoning 'There is no way I can see how this could have happened without intelligent intervention...therefore it was by intelligent intervention.' should be utterly rejected.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-04-2006 2:58 PM | | Hyroglyphx has replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 53 of 301 (367831)
12-05-2006 6:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by 8upwidit2
12-04-2006 3:55 PM
|
|
Re: Newton Evoking God/Supernatural
It's a fair point, and it might be true. However, if 99% of his peers were fundy loons, I'd be surprised if he wasn't also (there was a 99% chance he was...)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by 8upwidit2, posted 12-04-2006 3:55 PM | | 8upwidit2 has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
Thanks DB. However, all I see is people saying "We don't know how this could have happened..." with the implication that there was some intent. That seems a little like what my OP was warning against. Why postulate intent when we don't know how something happened? It's espousing a philosophy of ignorance, not one of discovery. abe: also it uses hokey maths. It calculates the odds and compares that to the number of suns in our galaxy (it says 100 billion). It neglects to mention that there are about 10 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Thus the rather than 100 billion opportunities there are a conservative 10 20 opportunities. If we use their own slightly dodgy maths we get a completely different answer. Instead of an insanely small number. We get the number: 100 What can we learn from this number? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
You completely misunderstood what they were saying. What they are saying is that for all those factors to happen all at the same time, the probabilities are to be multiplied together. This gives us that small fraction. This is what shows us that our earth isn't just here by accident. I did multiply them together DB. Let me do the maths for you in simple terms. 10 20 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 x 1 /10 = 100 That is their maths, corrected (they use 10 11, suggesting this is the number of stars in our galaxy, I'm using 10 20 to represent the number of stars in our universe). Tell me, what does 100 mean?
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
Re: ID focuses on biology
Nothing can threaten science.
I certainly agree! If that's the case, then why is there a propaganda campaign to undermine ID in order to "save science?" Its very obvious that there is a sense of fear. quote:
However - science education is under threat. That leads to the scientific dominance of America being under threat. Scientists are passionate about science and education - they have generally spent a lot of time in education about science - so when the education system is threatened, they speak out. It is entirely rational.
Education isn't being threatened by the introduction of another variable. OK. So if I made the inference that a leading causitive factor in heart disease is education, that wouldn't threaten education? After all, I'm just making spurious inferences, 'adding another variable' so to speak.
Drawing the inference that life is intentional or unintentional does NOTHING to threaten science. That's just more of the pernicious lies being perpetrated against ID'ists quote:
Nothing can threaten science.
The inference that life is intentional does nothing to advance science either. Pretending that that inference is progressive will only lead to other ideas being acceptable to the new lower standards.
And evo's have waged a war over much-ado-about-nothing. Funny, here was I thinking that it was the IDists that were making the big stink.
If people started asserting that there is no such thing as DNA, and that we really get our looks from God, then you'd have a legitimate claim. Huh? If this is a legitimate claim, then anything is a legitimate claim. Is it scientifically supported? No. Should it be taught in the science classroom? NO!
Evolution is itself a strong dogma. Dogma is resistant to change. Evolution has changed considerably over the past 150 years. New mechanisms have been found and their impact on life is viewed differently every decade.
Politicization? Meaning what? Trying to get it into schools through means of PR campaigns, getting sympathizers in influential positions of power (school boards etc), court cases and popular press books and slogans (Teach the controversy!)
Because they are objecting to evolution on the basis of its misuse of science. Pointing out that most evolutionists have used evolution to advance atheism only adds to it the element of hypocrisy. In other words, let the students decide for themselves whether or not there is sufficient evidence that life is intentional or unintentional. So you don't apply the insidious minds theory to them equally? Fair enough then. So, we should present the evidence for evolution to them accurately and let them decide whether the conclusions drawn from that evidence are valid. I'd agree we should do the same thing for ID, once we have some positive evidence for it.
believing in the FSM is a belief totally separate from science, and so is belief in God. I have no way of unmasking who or what the Designer is. Agreed.
. For all we know, Gaia could be the Designer. Direct or Indirect Panspermia could be the delivery method for how life was first seeded on earth. But simply recognizing that life has all the markings of intent, who are we to try and dismiss by inventing clever reasons why it cannot be so. Both options should be allowed to be examined. Recognizing it is seperate from demonstrating evidence for the proposal. For the design inference to be scientific it needs actual evidence, you know? Ideally we'd have evidence of implementation of the design. And we'd have a working solution to the regression problem of 'who designed the designer'.
All three are acceptable answers, save the first, because it is supported scientifically that the universe has a definite beginning. Only if we consider time to be special. The four dimensional space-time could easily self exist with a coordinate system with a zero in one part of it. The point being we have to theorize a self existing entity somewhere along the line, and universe is the only entity in that list we have positive evidence for.
Its pointless in a scientific setting to simply assume that it was God who created this or that. The point being that God has traditionally filled that role, but it is irrelevant. Whatever name you want to give to the grand designer, the pitfall remains the same. The OP deals with how the design inference has seemed reasonable before, only for us to discover that with further inquiry, the secret of the illusion is revealed. Since even the smartest people can fall for the design illusion under certain circumstances we should warn against the pitfall and encourage people to keep looking for answers beyond design.
That's absurd! Demand evidence before the fact when its the evidence that will lead you there!? Think about it. We theorized, based off initial evidence, that Black Holes existed. We didn't know for sure. We theorized based off initial findings. It is absurd to demand evidence from which to infer conclusions?
With your logic, you demand that we must first have seen Black Holes before you will allow the evidence that would lead to their discovery as an a priori. That's absurd. No, you follow the evidence until it is either falsified by other evidence to the contrary, or until your theory is validated.
Well, I don't see a problem with that. We theorize that black holes are a possible existence in a certain type of universe. We then find physical evidence that supports the existence of black hole's existence and make predictions based on that idea which then pan out... A sequence of events sadly lacking in designer lore.
Which is why the debate about God will rage on until the end of the world or will trek on for all eternity. So, really, trying to undermine ID won't take away the God-factor for anyone. Of course it won't. What part of my early posts in this thread would lead you to make such a statement? I am just saying that the Design inference is a pitfall we should teach students to avoid. I am not trying to undermine the design inference, just its utility for scientific purposes. That, as you say, is entirely irrelevant to a theological debate.
Science should be a meritocracy in all cases. Which is why ID'ists do not agree with the current paradigm. And it is why ID doesn't get accepted into the paradigm, it lacks any merit - as you admit it is just based on criticism of evolution rather than as a solid and practical explanatory framework in its own right.
You know, I really don't want anyone to settle on it. I would much rather that people be given a host of options. I just want ID to have a platform. That's all. If people think its bunk, then that's up to them. ID has a platform. It, in its many forms, has had a platform for thousands of years. That platform is not currently a scientific one, until it meets the current standards that science has.
To leave it simply at that would emasculate scientific inquiry. Indeed, they'd be out of a job-- including proponents of ID. Neither wants that. I think they'd be content on examining evolution and work from there. There is a lot to be said about focussing ones attention on propositions that have positive evidence for them, rather than propositions that rely on supposed negative evidences against another proposition. Otherwise we'd all be desperately chasing Russell's Teapot!
Apologies for the delay, but I am only now regaining my fitness after my unfortunate episode. The response was slightly choppy partially due to this also - so my apologies for that as well. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-09-2006 5:37 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 291 of 301 (372705)
12-29-2006 5:58 AM
|
|
|
The philosophy of ignorance
I started this thread by saying that many great minds arrived at a design conclusion by means of the design inference. The design inference is basically saying 'I cannot see how this could happen through purely natural means, it must have come about by means of an intelligent agent'. This inference is often useful. For example, people rarely grow bullets in their lungs, with matching bullet shaped wounds in the appropriate tissues. Thus, infering that it was murder is perfectly reasonable. This kind of inference comes to us naturally - and we can point to evolutionary reasons why knowing the difference between things which are natural and things which had intervention from another social/intelligent animal would be useful. However, when we start using the design inference to explain unusual things that occurred before any known intelligent agent existed we have a problem. We have no evidence that an intelligent agent could have done it, because we have no evidence that intelligent agents existed. We start staring at a spiral of circularity when we try and then use the design inference to demonstrate that a designer must exist! Historically the great minds that have used the above sequence of logic have later been shown to be incorrect. Non-designer explanations have emerged later. We have seen this recently with irreducible complexity. Some said that it was a characteristic of designed systems, but it turns out that it is not only perfectly plausible through natural evolutionary processes but it was actually a prediction made using the theory of evolution (pre world war II)! Making the declaration - this enigma is best explained via an unevidenced designer - poses a dangerous risk. Having an answer is a disincentive to continuing to asking the questions. It encourages the lazy human mind to cease (or at least slow in) striving for discovery. It is a philosophy that encourages (willingly or otherwise), a certain level ignorance about the universe's mysteries. That is why I call it the philosophy of ignorance and have contrasted it to the philosophy of discovery. Because discovery relies on education standards, we should discuss the dangers of the design inference in the science class. However, the thread degraded into a defense/attack on the modern ID movement, ancillary issues and so on. At every twist and turn the supporters of the design inference made two things clear: 1) They think it unecessary to have evidence that a designer actually exists before positing that a designer was responsible for something. The design inference is used as evidence in its own right for the existence of a desiger that could be responsible for the design. Horribly messy logic. 2) That they are infering something purely based on a lack of knowledge (life is so complicated there is no way it could have occurred naturally according to our current knowledge...). That is - the design inference relies on a certain level of ignorance about the world. The modern ID movement encourages ignorance, since the more ignorance they can foster the more books they can sell. Horribly cynical, but that is simply what seems to be happening. The smartest proponents (ie those that should know better) are saying things which are clearly refuted by a look at the primary literature - so their attempts to obfuscate the facts in an attempt to earn money is almost self-evident.
|
™ Version 4.2