Intelligent design redux

his is nothing but scare mongering.
No. Don't think everyone is as stupid and dishonest as you.

Established biology and indeed the cornerstone of biology is evolution via natural selection.

That is what is taught to university students and pre college.

Only uneducated people or brain washed idiots think otherwise.
 
Opponents of the theory often insist that intelligent design emerged as a conspiracy to circumvent the 1987 Supreme Court decision, Edwards vs. Aguillard.1 There the Court struck down a Louisiana law promoting the teaching of creation science in public school science classes. The theory of intelligent design, critics insist, is merely a clever end-run around this ruling, biblical creationism in disguise.

The problem with this claim is the intelligent design predates Edwards vs. Aguillard by many years. Its roots stretch back to design arguments made by Socrates and Plato,2 and even the term “intelligent design” is more than 100 years old. Oxford scholar F.C.S. Schiller employed it in an 1897 essay, writing that “it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by an intelligent design.”3For a historical time line of the design arguments stretching back to ancient times, and use of the term “intelligent design” in the last two centuries

This is nothing but scare mongering.
As a person of science (according to you), this is terribly ignorant.
It is as if you don’t want there to be a designer, as opposed to not having evidence of design.

Of course I have
Have you ever heard of the theory of evolution?
OK, I am almost out of patience for responding to a cdesign proponentsists but I'll have one more go.

You - intentionally I suspect - miss the point. Again. The ID concept is not science, as it is untestable, explains nothing and snuffs out scientific enquiry. As such it has no business to be taught as science.

ID is a metaphysical idea, designed to roll the pitch to introduce God into science. The Wedge Document, which was made public by mistake, makes this crystal clear. [my bold]. :-

QUOTE
......However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.....

UNQUOTE


From: https://ncse.ngo/wedge-document

That concludes the case for the prosecution, m'lud. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
I'm more inclined to use words like 'structure', 'orderliness' or even 'reasonableness'. Science presupposes that reality possesses those kind of qualities, without which the practice of science would be impossible.
I also use the words like that because the description may fit. I also use terms like “evolve”, evolution, etc.. But in my mind it doesn’t detract away from the reality we see with our own eyes, and the discoveries that has been made through the progress of science.
I'm not really prepared to go as far as calling it 'design', because that would commit me to believing in a purposive intelligent designer, I guess.
I get that.
We are lead by our predominant worldviews.
I don’t have to call the designer, God. But that is my choice. It doesn’t mean that I must be regarded as right by others with a different worldview to me. And it doesn’t mean I call people idiots, liars, or try to tell them what they think isn’t actually what they think, because they don’t agree with me

In my scenario with the watch, the inhabitants didn’t have to agree that the watch was designed, and it didn’t make them wrong based on what they knew. They could still practice their science and give all kinds of scientific information about what they observed.
But that being said, I do feel quite strongly (a metaphysical intuition, perhaps) that reality itself, to say nothing of the structure, orderliness and reasonableness it displays, requires an Explanation. Why does existence exist in the first place?? Why does it conform to reason and to mathematics and logic?? (Whatever mathematics and logic ultimately are... which remains an open question.) Yes, I'm very aware of the infinite regress problems.

But I don't think of this (entirely-hypothetical) ultimate-Explanation (it's ultimacy is why I capitalize it) as a conventional religious deity. Though as the Secret of the Universe it might indeed be said to be the ultimate goal of all intellectual inquiry. I don't think of it in personal terms at all.

My tendency in the last few years is towards growing interest in the apophatic theology of late antiquity, both Christian and pagan, along with its analogues in Indian religious philosophy. This is the idea that whatever reality's ultimate Source might be, it completely transcends human cognition.


I have never been a Christian, Jew or Muslim, so the Bible means next to nothing to me. I don't believe that it has much of importance to tell me about ultimate reality. My religious affinities, such as they are, are probably closest to the late antique Platonists.

I've always been an agnostic, from my earliest years. My trajectory with regards to the philosophy of religion has been from agnostic atheism we might say (that still describes me in many of my moods) towards something more like Deism perhaps (when I'm in different moods). I'm kind of undecided, I guess.

And I think that "ID" proponents are probably mistaken in their obsessive hostility to Darwin and natural selection. The best case for something that they can perhaps spin into "ID" might arguably be found at a deeper and more fundamental metaphysical level.

Nope. Great thing about science is that you can test it. TOE past that test and continues to do so.

You are a liar and a fraud.

Shame on you for blatantly lying about your position.
Huh?
What are you talking about?
 
This is nothing but scare mongering.
It is not scare mongering when the purveyors of the theory admit that they are using it as an attempt to cancel the "materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

The authors state their goals:
"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

One of the authors, Philip Johnson, comes right out and admits that it has nothing to do with science: "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion. ."

So he's exacty right. It is religion masquerading as science - and we know this because that's what it was designed to be.
 
The conclusion clearly wasn't deduced from the "mountain of evidence".
Like I said earlier, you might prefer to think about induction or abduction rather than deduction.

However you want to describe the reasoning that led to the theory of evolution, the theory followed from an examination of evidence. The modern theory is supported by a "mountain of evidence", as Pinball told you.

Why did you ignore my previous post?

So the 38 Nobel laureates claim that evolution is "Logically derived from confirmable evidence..." loses much of its rhetorical force absent a deductive proof, which they don't possess.
None of the major theories in science has a deductive proof.

It sounds like you're clutching at straws for a reason not to accept the theory of evolution.

I will ask you again. Try to answer honestly. (Try to answer.) Do you accept the theory of evolution?
It might indeed be true that the conclusion becomes more likely somehow, in light of the evidence, but there doesn't appear to be any necessity or certainty to it.
You're basically trying to throw out the "certainty" of all of science, to prop up ... what, exactly? Some kind of vague religious feeling you have?
There is currently all kinds of work being done trying to apply various kinds of probability theory (Bayesian and otherwise) to the issues raised by 'Inference to the Best Explanation'. But it's all still very much a work in progress.
Meanwhile, while the Bayesian philosophers debate, science keeps progressing, using tried and true methods that have proven successful over centuries.
Which is a long way of stating my point, which is that the 38 Nobel laureates were claiming more certainty for their favored conclusion ("Logically derived from confirmable evidence") than they actually posessed.
Not really. Induction and abduction are rational processes. Logic is involved. In fact, there is a constant interplay among induction, deduction and abduction in science.
They were trying to dazzle all the little laypeople with the blinding reflection off all those Nobel prize medals.
You don't seem to have much respect for scientists who win Nobel prizes. Maybe you just don't have a lot of respect for science or scientists in general?
 
I'm more inclined to use words like 'structure', 'orderliness' or even 'reasonableness'. Science presupposes that reality possesses those kind of qualities, without which the practice of science would be impossible.
Not "presupposes". Structure, order and such is what we observe in the world. Also disorder and randomness, of course.
But that being said, I do feel quite strongly (a metaphysical intuition, perhaps) that reality itself, to say nothing of the structure, orderliness and reasonableness it displays, requires an Explanation.
That's part of what science does.
Why does existence exist in the first place?? Why does it conform to reason and to mathematics and logic??
Good questions. We don't have those answers, yet.
But I don't think of this (entirely-hypothetical) ultimate-Explanation (it's ultimacy is why I capitalize it) as a conventional religious deity. Though as the Secret of the Universe it might indeed be said to be the ultimate goal of all intellectual inquiry. I don't think of it in personal terms at all.

My tendency in the last few years is towards growing interest in the apophatic theology of late antiquity, both Christian and pagan, along with its analogues in Indian religious philosophy. This is the idea that whatever reality's ultimate Source might be, it completely transcends human cognition.
That doesn't sound much like a god. More like a blank place holder for the unknown. Something goes here, but you don't know what, and you suspect you will never know. That's fine, as far as it goes.
I've always been an agnostic, from my earliest years. My trajectory with regards to the philosophy of religion has been from agnostic atheism we might say (that still describes me in many of my moods) towards something more like Deism perhaps (when I'm in different moods). I'm kind of undecided, I guess.
The problem with Deism is that it posits an undetectable God and then somehow claims to have detected it.

Most descriptions of deistic gods portray a god whose only role is to get the universe started. After that, the god does nothing, and the god is forever undetectable and unknowable.

This, too, is essentially just sticking an "I don't know" label on some things, but choosing for some reason to call it "God" (which sort of implies, although it is vociferously denied, that something is known about it, after all).
And I think that "ID" proponents are probably mistaken in their obsessive hostility to Darwin and natural selection.
Probably? You're not sure?
 
Opponents of the theory often insist that intelligent design emerged as a conspiracy to circumvent the 1987 Supreme Court decision, Edwards vs. Aguillard.
The most recent incarnation of "intelligent design", certainly.

The vague idea that maybe somebody designed nature has, as you say, been around forever.

The theory of intelligent design, critics insist, is merely a clever end-run around this ruling, biblical creationism in disguise.
At least one court of law has accepted that this is the case which, quite clearly, it is.
This is nothing but scare mongering.
You really ought to read the judgment in the Kitzmiller case. Get back to me once you've done that and we can discuss. In the meantime, you shouldn't make claims from a position of ignorance.
It is as if you don’t want there to be a designer, as opposed to not having evidence of design.
Do you have evidence of intelligent design in nature? Can you present some of it?
 
The vague idea that maybe somebody designed nature has, as you say, been around forever.
“…that somebody designed nature…”
That’s funny :)

You really ought to read the judgment in the Kitzmiller case. Get back to me once you've done that and we can discuss. In the meantime, you shouldn't make claims from a position of ignorance.
The judge basically ruled that the designer in ID, was supernatural. This despite testimominies form ID proponents that it could not be identified either way (natural/ supernatural).

The judge was wrong in his judgement in my opinion. Because he said so, doesn’t mean it is so.
 
No. Don't think everyone is as stupid and dishonest as you.
Resorting to name calling now?
This is why I stopped debating these issues with dogmatic evolution people. You can’t control your emotions. It must be your way, or the highway.
Established biology and indeed the cornerstone of biology is evolution via natural selection.
It is a branch of biology
That is what is taught to university students and pre college.
Oh well!
Only uneducated people or brain washed idiots think otherwise.
That is very poor reasoning.
It seems you went from a dogmatic Christian to a dogmatic evolutionist.
Dogma is not your friend
 
he judge was wrong in his judgement in my opinion. Because he said so, doesn’t mean it is so.

So the judge(s) pl there was more than one attempt to smuggle this garbage to children.
Huh?
What are you talking about?
Doubling down playing dumb again?

Ok that’s fine I will spell it out again.

First. The Theory of Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, and I have given you many citations w.r.t respected Scientific Organisations which you have ignored.

Instead, you suggested this highly educated group of professors, researchers, and other scientists, including Nobel winners, have somehow been coerced due to peer pressure, which is creationist, idiotic, conspiracy nonsense.

Second .I.D. Is not a Scientific Theory, no one in the scientific community or legal system with any sincerity or integrity thinks this is about science, not even the guys who pushed it and this has been pointed out to you which again you decided to ignore.





I.D. or creation science as was it was called before, is all about religion and attempts smuggle it into children’s education, even the authors admit this, you chose to ignore it.


Clear enough?
 
Resorting to name calling now?
Well stop lying then?
It is a branch of biology

No, it is the corner stone of Biology but Theodosius Dobzhansky puts it more eloquently than I.

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."

That is very poor reasoning.
It seems you went from a dogmatic Christian to a dogmatic evolutionist.
Dogma is not your friend

By definition I could not have been a dogmatic Christian as I would have not had doubts and just blindly believed it without investigating it.

By definition science cannot be dogmatic, GR could be proven wrong tomorrow, if the evidence were strong enough.

Same with Evolution, Darwin was right about some thing things but wrong about others, that is the nature of science. It constantly edits, refines, adds to, widens scope of.
 
“…that somebody designed nature…”
That’s funny :)
If you say so.
The judge basically ruled that the designer in ID, was supernatural. This despite testimominies form ID proponents that it could not be identified either way (natural/ supernatural).
The judge found the ID proponents to be less than honest about a lot of things. The point here is that the designer the ID proponents had in mind in this case was quite clearly the Christian God, which is supernatural.

You've read the judgment, then? Or not?
The judge was wrong in his judgement in my opinion.
What did he get wrong?
This is why I stopped debating these issues with dogmatic evolution people.
That's okay. There are a lot of people right here who aren't dogmatic about it - myself included. I don't accept evolution on the basis of any dogma. Scientists, in general, don't, either.
It is a branch of biology
Evolution is the central theory around which all of modern biology revolves. Biology makes no sense except in light of evolution, as previously quoted.
Dogma is not your friend
Wise words.

Dogma starts when somebody gives as the reason to believing something that "it just makes sense to me".
 
If you say so.
I do.
The judge found the ID proponents to be less than honest about a lot of things. The point here is that the designer the ID proponents had in mind in this case was quite clearly the Christian God, which is supernatural.
In what case?
They laid out their case, and “the Christian God” wasn’t anywhere to be found in their presentation. And there still isn’t.
Nothing but scare mongering, and panic.
You've read the judgment, then? Or not?
I read it years back.
What did he get wrong?
Already told you
That's okay. There are a lot of people right here who aren't dogmatic about it - myself included. I don't accept evolution on the basis of any dogma. Scientists, in general, don't, either.
If you say so
Evolution is the central theory around which all of modern biology revolves. Biology makes no sense except in light of evolution, as previously quoted.
According to wiki …

“Evolutionary biology is the subfield of biology that studies the evolutionary processes (natural selection,”
Wise words.

Dogma starts when somebody gives as the reason to believing something that "it just makes sense to me".
No it doesn’t
 
In what case?
They laid out their case, and “the Christian God” wasn’t anywhere to be found in their presentation. And there still isn’t.
Nothing but scare mongering, and panic.
Wrong again. Exchemist already cited the Wedge document to you. Did you read it or not?

Here is the full document. Read it. It is sinister, anti scientific creationist garbage. The complete opposite on how science is supposed to work.



I read it years back.

Read it again, the creationists were trounced in the courtroom not for the first time.

“Evolutionary biology is the subfield of biology that studies the evolutionary processes (natural selection,”

Yes and permeates all areas of Biology, it is the corner stone of the subject and essential to ecology, medicine/disease, drug and vaccine research among other fields.

No it doesn’t

Dogma stick to their guns, does not move forward, relies on authority despite what the evidence is pointing to.

Feel familiar to you?
 
I'm more inclined to use words like 'structure', 'orderliness' or even 'reasonableness'. Science presupposes that reality possesses those kind of qualities, without which the practice of science would be impossible.

Trek said:
I also use the words like that because the description may fit. I also use terms like “evolve”, evolution, etc.. But in my mind it doesn’t detract away from the reality we see with our own eyes, and the discoveries that has been made through the progress of science.

To me, the explanation for reality itself, to say nothing of the order that it displays (logic, mathematics, the "laws" of physics) are pointers towards unanswered questions. The deepest and most ultimate questions there are, questions that I strongly suspect are well beyond the ability of science to answer. Questions that have historically been more the province of religion.

Yazata said:
I'm not really prepared to go as far as calling it 'design', because that would commit me to believing in a purposive intelligent designer, I guess.

Trek said:
I get that.
We are lead by our predominant worldviews.
I don’t have to call the designer, God. But that is my choice.

The reason why I don't go there is because I don't possess the Secret of the Universe, and what's more I don't believe that any human being does. That makes me an agnostic in Thomas Huxley's original sense when he coined the word.

So I'm not comfortable with attempts to equate what I perceive as the unknown answers with the purported revelations of any particular religions. Calling the unknown answer "God" threatens to import all of the personal deity stuff from the supposedly revealed religions (the "Abrahamic" ones in particular) and I don't want to do that.

That being said, I don't think that my more metaphysical way of framing things excludes the possibility of a more traditional 'God' either. I just don't want to get out ahead of myself by assuming the shape that the unknown answer might take. In my opinion, we don't know that.

So as far as "ID" in science classes goes, I would support science being presented to students in a more honest manner and not as a "wedge" strategy for teaching atheism, scientism and hard metaphysical naturalism. Students should be told that there are deep unanswered questions implicit in science itself, and that traditional theistic answers might conceivably be one possible answer out of an unknown number of other possible answers. Bottom line is that science simply doesn't know. What's more, given science's methodological naturalism, its probably outside the scope and ability of science to ever find out.

Hence any students interested in pursuing those kind of questions might be best advised to take a philosophy or religion class, because this science class isn't going to address it.
 
Last edited:
The judge basically ruled that the designer in ID, was supernatural. This despite testimominies form ID proponents that it could not be identified either way (natural/ supernatural).
The judge was correct. There are two possibilities:

1) The "designer" in ID is supernatural, which is what ID states. Or at least

2) The "designer" in ID is nothing more than natural forces, in which case ID is identical to evolutionary science.

The judge was wrong in his judgement in my opinion.
The judge was correct, for a few reasons.

First, the book supported creationism, which is the belief that divine action created the Earth and everything else. This is, by definition, supernatural. There was a second edition of the book where every variant of the word "creationism" was replaced with a different word, but the judge was not fooled by the editing. (It is worth noting that there is now a third edition of the book with a different name; several school districts are now trying again, hoping that the name change will allow them to disregard this precedent.)

Second, the publisher (a ministry run by minister Jon Buell) is a tax exempt religious organization, whose stated purpose is "proclaiming, publishing, preaching [and] teaching…the Christian Gospel and understanding of the Bible and the light it sheds on the academic and social issues of the day". The authors admitted it was to push religion into schools; author Percival Davis said "Of course my motives were religious. There's no question about it" when asked about his motives for writing it.

Third, the first part of the book was written by Nancy Pearcey of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute also wrote the Wedge Document, which as mentioned previously, documents their attempt to defeat "scientific materialism" by dressing religion in scienc-y sounding language.
 
So as far as "ID" in science classes goes, I would support science being presented to students in a more honest manner and not as a "wedge" strategy for teaching atheism, scientism and hard metaphysical naturalism
Which science class does that? Science class teaches peer reviewed published literature that is important enough to find it's way into standard text books.
I still remember most my modules from University.

Organisms for applied Biology.
Laboratory Management.
Plant physiology.
Cell Biology
Biochemistry
Nerve and Endocrine physiology
Chemistry A (physical & some QM))
Chemistry B (organic)
Animal Physiology
Practical Microbiology
Biotechnology
Environmental Biology
Genetics.

Text books of note.

The Cell. Alberts.
Genes. Lewin.
Physical Chemistry. Atkins
Clinical and Diagnostic Medicine (I lost that one)
Grays Anatomy. Gray.

Plenty others but my point is that nowhere in those books or my lectures was the word "atheism" used. Or god, why would they be?

I do not think we had a specific book on Evolution because it cropped up in virtually every module bar Chemistry.
 
To me, the explanation for reality itself, to say nothing of the order that it displays (logic, mathematics, the "laws" of physics) are pointers towards unanswered questions.
Why do you think it displays order?
Or, why have you decided that what you perceive is order?
The deepest and most ultimate questions there are, questions that I strongly suspect are well beyond the ability of science to answer. Questions that have historically been more the province of religion.
You’ve decided that the questions are unanswerable.
This is what I meant by we are lead by our worldview. If I remember correctly you are agnostic (with a leaning towards Deism)?

Jesus presupposed God (his Father), he spoke to theists ( as they were the ones who stood a chance of understanding him).
You would have to change your worldview to get satisfactory answers to those ultimate questions.
You are already on your way because you see order in reality. So I get why Deism appeals to you.
The reason why I don't go there is because I don't possess the Secret of the Universe, and what's more I don't believe that any human being does. That makes me an agnostic in Thomas Huxley's original sense when he coined the word.
How do you know you don’t posses the Secret of the universe (whatever that may be).
You’re a conscious, intelligent human being, what it is it you think you lack the keeps you in the agnostic camp?
So I'm not comfortable with attempts to equate what I perceive as the unknown answers with the purported revelations of any particular religions. Calling the unknown answer "God" threatens to import all of the personal deity stuff from the supposedly revealed religions (the "Abrahamic" ones in particular) and I don't want to do that.
So in one sense you admit you don’t know the secrets of the universe (whatever entails), but you know that purported revelations of a particular religion is not where you want to go for “secrets of the universe” (whatever they are).
So.
Why?
So as far as "ID" in science classes goes, I would support science being presented to students in a more honest manner and not as a "wedge" strategy for teaching atheism, scientism and hard metaphysical naturalism.
Students should be told that there are deep unanswered questions implicit in science itself, and that traditional theistic answers might conceivably be one possible answer out of an unknown number of other possible answers.
There aren’t any “theistic answers”so to speak. Theism is a worldview/lens. From there we perceive.
While one can, if they so wish, extrapolate from ID, a theistic understanding, one can just as easily extrapolate a materialistic understanding eg: extra terrestrial intelligent cause. Or like our atheist chums, a purely natural cause (no intelligence needed)
The fact is that at the very least things look like there is some kind of intelligence behind aspects of nature, based on what we know. You yourself thinks reality displays order ( mathematics, logic, the laws of physics). That’s just the way it is.

I proved in my little ‘watch’ scenario that it is reasonable to infer design based on what we know.

Does this look like an intelligent design, or a natural coming together by chance…
Bottom line is that science simply doesn't know. What's more, given science's methodological naturalism, it’s probably outside the scope and ability of science to ever find out.
More than probably IMO.
Hence any students interested in pursuing those kind of questions might be best advised to take a philosophy or religion class, because this science class isn't going to address it.
It’s not something you learn, it is something that unfolds. Our realisation is only as good as our current worldview.
That’s why in real religion you have to surrender what you think you know. The trouble is most of us aren’t prepared to do that.
 
I proved in my little ‘watch’ scenario...
Sorry what? You "proved?"


Does this look like an intelligent design, or a natural coming together by chance…
To the scientifically illiterate it could look like anything.
It’s not something you learn, it is something that unfolds.

Really, so how did Quantum Mechanics "unfold" to you?
 
Last edited:
The judge was correct. There are two possibilities:

1) The "designer" in ID is supernatural, which is what ID states. Or at least
It doesn’t…
2) The "designer" in ID is nothing more than natural forces, in which case ID is identical to evolutionary science.
It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks. Stuff looks designed and purposeful. That is a fact.
Draw from it what you will
The judge was correct, for a few reasons.
First, the book supported creationism, which is the belief that divine action created the Earth and everything else.
Show where the institute claims the designer is God of the Bible, or any scripture/religion
There was a second edition of the book where every variant of the word "creationism" was replaced with a different word, but the judge was not fooled by the editing. (It is worth noting that there is now a third edition of the book with a different name; several school districts are now trying again, hoping that the name change will allow them to disregard this precedent.)
Can you link me to the second edition where you know for a fact every variant of the word “creationism” was with a different word
Second, the publisher (a ministry run by minister Jon Buell) is a tax exempt religious organization, whose stated purpose is "proclaiming, publishing, preaching [and] teaching…the Christian Gospel and understanding of the Bible and the light it sheds on the academic and social issues of the day". The authors admitted it was to push religion into schools; author Percival Davis said "Of course my motives were religious. There's no question about it" when asked about his motives for writing it.
Again please provide a link
Third, the first part of the book was written by Nancy Pearcey of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute also wrote the Wedge Document, which as mentioned previously, documents their attempt to defeat "scientific materialism" by dressing religion in scienc-y sounding language.
I’ve sent a link to Yazata where the Discovery Institute explains the scare mongering version of the report that was posted on an atheist website
 
Back
Top