Is a Concept of a Designer unscientific?

Philosopher Michael Ruse stated, If theory does not have any empirical evidence in support of it, it cannot be tested and therefore cannot be science.Like Ruse, we believe that if a concept is not testable against a reoccurring pattern of events, then it is not scientific. If we are referring to empirical science, then we are correct. Having said that, a forensic scientist, who may be forced to attempt a possible reconstruction of a murder, a murder which may have been unobserved and is certainly unrepeatable, would be rather offended is his work were referred to as unscientific. There is science that is not empirical, or not operable, and it remains a science.The study of origins is such a science. Those who study are forced to speculate on origins whose beginnings are both unobservable and unrepeatable. Scientists who identify themselves as creationists presuppose that a god exists, while those who identify themselves as evolutionists presuppose that a god does not exist, though they would state that such a presupposition falls outside the realm of science.Predetermined philosophies influence how scientists will interpret the facts. ‘Creation scientists’ or ‘evolutionary scientists’ both state that the universe did have a beginning. It is how such scientists interpret such a fact that determines whether they are a creationist or an evolutionist. The creationist states that a god (usually God) created the universe, while evolutionists dismiss this as, not necessarily wrong, but certainly unscientific. However as I stated earlier, the study or origins, is different than an empirical study. Reminding yourself of the forensic scientist, and many others, who are forced to reconstruct the unobservable and unrepeatable, I leave you with the following question: If evidence is interpreted as showing design in living organisms, then is it truly unscientific to conclude that there was a Designer?Kelly J. Wilson

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Indeed he would, because that would be inaccurate, just as it's inaccurate to say that his work is not repeatable.Each test the forensic scientist performs is individually repeatable. His work is repeatable, falsifiable, and scientific. To say that forensic science is not repeatable is to betray a staggering ignorance of the scientific method. No, there's not. To the contrary, since most Christians believe that evolution is accurate and are, therefore, evolutionists, we know that some evolutionists suppose that there is a god. Others, like me, do not. This is irrelevant to the veracity of evolution, which has nothing to do with gods. If a designer can be substantiated by evidence, then it would not be unscientific to conclude a designer, no. What's unscientific is every attempt, so far, by creationists and ID'ists to substantiate their god based on nothing but human ignorance about natural processes.

There seems to be a recurring issue with what "observable" is.It appears to be based on the idea that if you see something with your own eyes there is no better evidence for something. And that "observation" can only by by eye balls at the scene.I think both of these ideas are wrong.1) Personal naked eye witnessing.
The testimony of eye witnesses has been shown to be very unreliable as a source of information.If you witness an event you are only able to see it from one angle, with what light is available. If you could have a video record of the same event from 6 different angles would that not be better than an eye witness view. It would see things not otherwise visible and would be available for slow, step by step examination by anyone.2) Eye Balls at the Scene
However, there maybe things which occur for which an eyewitness account would be useless. Simply "seeing" the 1980 explosion at Mt St Helen's would be pretty much useless. It would not be of any value today for example. However, the fact that the mountain was "observed" through instrumentation for months previous to 1980 is what enabled the prediction of that explosion and the ability to warn about an impending eruption now. The instruments are not "seeing" in the usual sense of the word but they do "observe".It is not necessary to "observe" all details to be able to draw conclusions. These conclusions will be more or less safe depending on what the "observations" are.If there is a trail of foot prints leaving a crime scene we are, in a very real sense, observing the path of a possible perpetrator. It is just not as detailed an observation as others might be.If we detect the presence of a specific chemical in the aftermath of an explosion we are making an observation that tells us what exploded. It, in this case, may be a better "observation" that standing (at a reasonable distance ) and seeing the explosion.It is simple not true that we can't "observe" things that happened when no one was there.Just like the chemical explosion we can observer the big bang, for example. It left a number of different "residues" just like some explosives may.There are a lot of ways to observe something. Some are, for some events, better than being an eye witness. It is the ability to re examine (repeat) the things which we use to observe and event which is part of science. We can never re examine an eye witness account and they have been shown to be unreliable. That is why the popular idea of "observable" is more or less useless and very misleading.

forensics is strictly scientific. don't you watch tlc?everything that's done in forensics is collecting evidence, and testing for certain things. i don't even know how you can say different, it's just absurd. this isn't like red dragon, where someone makes up a crazy psychological profile and magically catches the killer. it's methodically looking for trace evidence - hair, finger prints, blood, semen, etc - and other evidence such as bullet casings, blast patterns, blood splatter, etc. tests are performed to determine conclusively certain things - what kind gun or knife was used, from where in the room. these are all based on scientific data. tests are done on dna and fingerprints to determine matches on suspects.forensics is VERY scientific. also wrong. studying origins is like doing forensic work. there is evidence to be tested, and certain aspects an be recreated in lab tests. first, it's very, very hard for evidence to conclude design. look at the face on mars. it looks designed, but it wasn't.second, evolution provides for design. it's called artificial selection, and we do it all the time.

The fundamental argument here is that all interpretations are equal.That is obiviously false. Surely some interpretations can be more scientific than others and we can justly push some outside the bounds of science altogether. Without an examination of the actual issues involved we certainly cannot come to the conclusion that it is or is not unscientific to include a designer.

I think the concept of a designer is not totally unscientific, but rather that a designer is more thoroughly investigated, and given credence - through philosophy. Science cannot lay it's hands on a designer, just like I cannot lay my hands on the designer of a car, by examining it. The nature of the design might be found - it could "look" like design, or not. The design can be seen, but not the designer. This is why philosophy deals well with God. Science is used for determining the facts, truth can remain unscientific. Therefore - trying to give credence to God through science is unnaceptable to some people because the design can be seen, but not the designer. This doesn't mean that nature doesn't show God, it just means that science isn't the dudeguy who talks about it showing God. We are able to believe in God without him being evidenced, but science doesn't deal with belief.So I'm not too bothered about making God "impressive looking" via science, becaue the universe speaks for itself and science doesn't own it. Science is the facts of reality and truth may escape it, I can understand why people want to make God look convincing through science, but basically - science doesn't say anything about God, because it's too clever to. It says what it get's it's hands on.As for "eyeballs at the scene", lol - good post Ned. Also - eyes might "see" what they want to see. Yesterday I seen a funny cloud coming my way, I could have sworn it was an angel but it wasn't - it was just a cloud, and that's that. Thinking more about this - deep down I knew it was a cloud, I just wanted it to be some big supernatural entity, but it wasn't - it was a cloud. I think I agree with this part though, as I cannot see how any man/woman could repeat the beginning of the universe; I mean - origins of life - people have tried to get life through experimentation, but the beginning of the universe, that is unrepeatable, but there is nevertheless evidence of a Big Bang which can be observed presently. So, I dunno.

quote:

---

Like Ruse, we believe that if a concept is not testable against a reoccurring pattern of events, then it is not scientific.

---

You inserted "a reoccurring pattern of events" and I will show where your premise fails with respect to the scientific method.

quote:

---

If we are referring to empirical science, then we are correct. Having said that, a forensic scientist, who may be forced to attempt a possible reconstruction of a murder, a murder which may have been unobserved and is certainly unrepeatable, would be rather offended is his work were referred to as unscientific. There is science that is not empirical, or not operable, and it remains a science.

---

You have confused two things in this description: repeatability and empirical.Repeatability: This does not mean that we have to repeat the event, but rather the evidence used to reconstruct the event must be accessible through objective means. That is, every person who assesses the evidence must come to the same observation. For instance, several labs have to come up with the same DNA match, the same fingerprint matches, or the same blood typing. If more than one person come up with the same data then it is repeatable. It is not the event that needs to be repeatable but the data that needs to be repeatable.Empirical: Repeatable and empirical are tightly connected and I almost thought about combining them. Empirical is just another word for objective data. That is, data that is not subject to bias or personal revelation. For instance, the height of the Eiffel Tower is objective, as is the length of a ruler, the weight of a container, etc. These are things that everyone can agree on regardless of religious, political, or any other personal bias. Of course, the best test of objectivity, or empiricism, is the ability of other people to confirm your data, hence repeatibility.So, as you can see, fornesic science, which deals in repeatable and empirical data, is science.

quote:

---

The study of origins is such a science. Those who study are forced to speculate on origins whose beginnings are both unobservable and unrepeatable.

---

Just so that we agree on the connotation of your post, you are saying that the study of origins is not a science, more of a pseudoscience. If I am incorrect let me know.Unrepeatable is not a problem. The major problem is that even if we are able to create life in a test tube we have no way of knowing if that is how life started. The only thing science can do, in this instance, is to put forward a plausible scenario that could have led to life. This scenario must be based in empirical science and be repeatable.In this thread I outlined an argument comparing Stonehenge and Irreducible Complexity. The argument works well here as well. Most people agree that humans built Stonehenge. This is not because we have records or pictures of humans building Stonehenge, but because we know that they had the technology capable of building Stonehenge. In fact, I have seen a few groups use stone age technology to move large stones like those at Stonehenge to show how it might have been done. This is exactly what scientists in abiogenesis are doing. They want to show that the chemistry on an early earth could have given rise to life. If chemistry alone can produce life without the influence of an outside agent then it is no longer a requirement to look to an outside agent. This in no way rules out the involvement of an outside agent.

quote:

---

Predetermined philosophies influence how scientists will interpret the facts. ‘Creation scientists’ or ‘evolutionary scientists’ both state that the universe did have a beginning. It is how such scientists interpret such a fact that determines whether they are a creationist or an evolutionist.

---

It is much more than a difference of interpretation, it is a difference of method. Scientists use the scientific method, also called methodological naturalism, to form theories. In that method, they start with observations, make hypotheses, and test the hypotheses. From this scientists are able to come to tentative conclusions. Creationists start from the other end. They start from a concrete conclusion (it has to be true) and then only use the data that supports the agreed upon conclusion. No testing is done since the conclusion is already made.

quote:

---

Reminding yourself of the forensic scientist, and many others, who are forced to reconstruct the unobservable and unrepeatable, I leave you with the following question: If evidence is interpreted as showing design in living organisms, then is it truly unscientific to conclude that there was a Designer?

---

As I have already shown, abiogenesis and forensics are science. Therefore the rest of your argument break down. How do we test to see if something is designed by an intelligent designer? What would potentially falsify the theory of intelligent design? Where is the evidence of a designer outside of the design? The reason we ascribe broken pottery to humans is because we know that people exist outside of the pottery. The reason we know a watch is designed is because we can observe the watch maker making the watch. No designer, outside of humans and animals on earth, have ever been observed. However, we can observe random nucleotides coming together to form polymers with enzymatic activity. We can observe amino acids forming in abiotic environments.The problem that the ID crowd runs into is that they practice science, or rather incorrectly practice science, in the same manner as creationists. They start with the conclusion, that a designer exists, and then fit the data in so that their conclusion is supported. On top of that, it also relies on a subjective opinion, that something LOOKS designed. It is a judgement call that is not based on objective data. Also, evolution has been shown to create design in biological organisms, as well as in engineering design and circuit design. Man, as we speak, is using evolutionary mechanisms to design plane wings and radios. So, we have an observable design mechanism (evolution) but some people find it religiously satisifying to rely on an unobserved design process. You tell me which is scientific.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 10-04-2004 12:53 PM

Everyone's replies so far have really done a great job.I think yours is good as well mike, even if I think you are wrong.Science is philosophy. It began as the branch known as natural philosophy. It was heavily influences by empiricists and gradually separated itself (I assume because it was more "hands on" and specified) into what we now call science.Philosophy will not help investigate or give credence to God any more or less than Science. Perhaps the one thing it can do is admit the possibility as a hypothetical, where science will not until there is a reason to. But that does not really add to a belief in Gods.Indeed, how would philosophy begin to make heads or tails over which mythological entities were most likely involved? As it is the study of knowledge it can't, other than to point out in which way they all could exist as theoretical possibilities.While I think your post was well written, instead of philosophy it should have been talking about faith as the counter to science.Science develops models of the truth through factual evidence, philosophy examines the logical relationship between fact and truth (including possible truths not yet approachable by science), while faith develops those alternate models of truth. Thus philosophy is a tool of both, but the two studies are science of the natural and faith of the supernatural (or unknowable). The evidence of a Big Bang is all that needs to be studied and various studies of that evidence repeated (to the same conclusion). No one has to recreate or repeat the BB. I suppose however that it could be recreated using mathematical models once enough knowledge has been gained in cosmology.We of course are nowhere close to that.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I noticed this come up with the late IDman and I started to address it with him, your outline is much more comprehensive.I am not sure if you have read much IDtheory but the more I think about it the more I think that this is the real problem. They hinge most of their theory on doubts regarding MN because it allows the "unobservable" as evidence in some cases, but not in theirs.They... such as the OP's author... miss how MN actually uses "observation" and cannot create models using "unobserved" evidence. It's just that unseen does not equal unobserved.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well yeah, you're right Sherlock, I should have used "faith and belief", but I guess that God is mulled over in philosophy rather than science. One can ask philosophical questions(Like Lam's thread) and knowledge and truth need not evidence if I remember correctly. I guess what I was saying is that science doesn't really deal with God - but maybe reasoning and beliefs do. Yes. Science doesn't mention God, but surely God is included in philosophy? Anyway - F&B would definately qualify, as you say. But that doesn't bother me much - as I don't need to evidence God, nor do I seek him to be scientifically validated - if I did then I would try. But as Phatboy says - God doesn't need to show off to man or take interest in his endeavours; So if God isn't included in science, I won't lose too much sleep because of my attitude towards homosapiens and their arrogance. Like I say - the universe isn't under the ownership of what man says. I'm not trying to say the ToBB is not scientific remember - as I said that it's evidence can be gathered today, like on your tv set.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-04-2004 05:14 PM

Apparently I didn't make my point clear enough.You are right that people can and do mull over Gods using philosophy. The problem is that people in science are ALSO using philosophy to mull over their models.The difference between the two (science and faith) is not that one is more philosophical than the other, nor that one has Gods and the other does not. The difference between the two are the strict requirements of facts or "evidence" to the building of a model (in science), and the looser requirements to build a model (in faith).Yeah, maybe that's how I should have said it earlier. Science and Faith are different practices regarding beliefs, philosophy is the tool both practices use, and the strictness of evidence to what one can say is knowledge is tighter in one than the other. Indeed, faith may presume evidence and so divides itself from science as being a pursuit of belief rather than explicit knowledge.The irony being what you pointed out... a scientific model based wholly on factual evidence and therefore a strict pursuit of knowledge may end up not modelling the truth. Empirical Knowledge =/= Truth.Hume set that out 100+ years ago, sweet genius that he was. Oh I didn't mean to say that. I was just trying to reinforce the point that Loudmouth had made to Kelly regarding what repeatability meant in science.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

[off topic rant...
This forum is dominated by a dozen, sharp thinking scholars, who will put you down you and call you ignorant if you think out of their highly scientific mind-set.This is only you first post and you've already been insulted by "betraying a staggering ignorance of scientific method" How rude and unwelcoming!For someone who has made an average of 10 posts a day for 17 months (yes over 6000) I would expect a little more consideration for a newbie.]A designer could be considered scientific if "he" fine tuned the universal constants/ laws of physics, i.e. the speed of light, the mass of sub atomic particles, the number of atoms, the strenght of gravity etc.

quote:

---

look at the face on mars. it looks designed, but it wasn't.

---

...and depending upon the lighting angle, it doesn't even look designed:

quote:

---

Yesterday I seen a funny cloud coming my way, I could have sworn it was an angel but it wasn't - it was just a cloud, and that's that. Thinking more about this - deep down I knew it was a cloud, I just wanted it to be some big supernatural entity, but it wasn't - it was a cloud.

---

hmmmm.....