tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4761155549638031234..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Intelligent Design Creationism is not religiousLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24194778613424759902012-03-28T19:05:40.313-04:002012-03-28T19:05:40.313-04:00Said aliens would see mount Rushmore and suggest &...Said aliens would see mount Rushmore and suggest "God (or equivalent) did this". Then some of them would find human fossils. And they'd be up to about where we are now.Frans Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58354073360202641722012-03-28T19:01:21.544-04:002012-03-28T19:01:21.544-04:00Evolutionary theory and the ID viewpoint are NOT a...Evolutionary theory and the ID viewpoint are NOT alternative arguments. As i sit here now i have just come up with an alternative to mathematics (which i fundamentally dispute the facts of). I will call it "Intelligent Numbers Fun". All content and theories will be provided hereafter. I now demand that it be provided equal time and balance - as it is superior to mathematics.<br /><br />What a crock. Get you're country together America. The world needs you less insane.Frans Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6806755592121532662011-03-20T22:55:34.546-04:002011-03-20T22:55:34.546-04:00To me, the concept of Intelligent Design is an int...To me, the concept of Intelligent Design is an interesting hypothesis. Unfortunately, that's where it appears to remain. The next step, on it's journey to becoming a scientific theory, would be to provide evidence, run some experiemnts ... something, ummm ... scientific.<br /><br />I read an essay by William Dembski where he postulates the reaction of a group of aliens landing on earth to find Mount Rushmore, after all of humanity has gone extinct. He asserts that the aliens would conclude that the sculptures on Mount Rushmore were explicitly designed and not part of nature. It seems to be, though, if the ONLY evidence remaining of humanity was Mount Rushmore, then I'm not so sure the same conclusion would be reached. <br /><br />Perhaps the aliens were incoporeal and not able to affect the physical world around them. Would they still conclude the sculptures were designed? I'm not so sure. But, of course, all of this is simply speculation.<br /><br />From my limited understanding of what ID represents, it sounds like a start on it's way to a scientific theory, but it's got a LONG way to go ...<br /><br />BloodyNoseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44405978273451044722011-03-20T15:48:35.890-04:002011-03-20T15:48:35.890-04:00Don't know whether anyone is still looking at ...Don't know whether anyone is still looking at this old thread, but Bilbo wrote something I thought worth commenting about:<br /><br /><i>Perhaps someday you might become desperate enough to not worry about so much about being fooled, and more worried about knowing if there really is something beyond this universe.</i><br /><br />Don't be fooled by my quote of Feynman re fooling yourself. :-)<br /><br />Here's what that quote really means to me:<br /><br />I find this life and this universe endlessly fascinating and full of things to be discovered. When learning something new, as people do I will often form speculations about it. Checking whether those speculations are correct or whether I've "fooled myself" is the way for me to determine whether there are yet more exciting new things to learn about a particular topic. (Most often, of course, there are.)<br /><br />So it's not at all that I'm worried about fooling myself. Rather, when I realize I haven't quite got it nailed, the feeling is like reading a good book and knowing there's plenty more to go before you reach the end.<br /><br />Regarding being desperate to know if there really is something beyond this universe, I would be fascinated to know that. I do a great deal of reading on the subjects of cosmology and fundamental physics, and would be delighted if some of what is now theory or speculation could be proved true or untrue in my lifetime. But even what is within currently accepted scientific theory is far beyond my present level of knowledge, leaving so much more to learn. It's wonderful.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88639380504931830452011-03-18T16:21:37.633-04:002011-03-18T16:21:37.633-04:00That's quite a stringent test, Jud. But as yo...That's quite a stringent test, Jud. But as you said before, this really wouldn't prove that there had been a supernatural event. It could be a natural event, and we just don't understand how, yet. <br /><br />It seems that your stuck with naturalism, which you might not mind at all. Perhaps someday you might become desperate enough to not worry about so much about being fooled, and more worried about knowing if there really is something beyond this universe.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68770931354086517062011-03-18T07:30:16.959-04:002011-03-18T07:30:16.959-04:00Jud: I'm quite curious how one can have reason...Jud: <i>I'm quite curious how one can have reasonably convincing evidence of something supernatural, and I'd love to know what your thinking is on this.</i><br /><br />Bilbo: <i>Briefly, in my case, it's a combination of philosophical reflection, authority, and personal experience.</i><br /><br /><i>So what would make you think that something supernatural existed?</i><br /><br />Thanks for your answer. As I'm sure you anticipated, my thinking differs somewhat. :-)<br /><br />Along the lines of the famous Richard Feynman quote ("The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool"), I would require a demonstration to multiple people, not just myself. I would also want some very good recording mechanisms, to reduce the possibility of simple expedients like magic tricks.<br /><br />With those prerequisites, I can think of a few things some entity might do to convince me and others that it had supernatural powers, which I'd define as feats not possible under fundamental physical principles of which we're reasonably sure. For example, the entity might vary the masses or charges of fundamental particles. Or it might instantly stop the rotation of the Earth for a period of time, then instantly restart it, while keeping all the objects on it from being thrown around by the sudden huge momentum changes, in violation of the laws of motion, a la Joshua 10:13. (Note Joshua 10:13 involved stopping the apparent motion of the moon as well. This would have seemed natural given the prevailing cosmology at the time Joshua was written, but as we now know stopping the apparent motion of the moon would have involved entirely separate physically impossible feats from stopping the apparent motion of the sun.)<br /><br />So far, nothing I can think of has qualified under these criteria as verifiably beyond natural laws, i.e., supernatural. There are many stories in various cultures about such things (Joshua 10:13 being one), but as the opportunities for observation and recording have gotten better, the frequency of such occurrences has correspondingly diminished.<br /><br />That last point is IMHO an extremely important one. Real phenomena, however mind-boggling, are demonstrated more often with greater opportunity for observation and recording. For example, Einstein's time dilation, an astounding concept if ever there was one, is verifiably demonstrated every single day now that GPS satellites correct for it and we see that GPS still works. Those of us old enough to remember TV reception through antennas all got to observe the heat signature of the Big Bang in the static on our sets when we turned to an unused channel.<br /><br />On the other hand, a characteristic of that which isn't real is that reported incidence diminishes as there is greater opportunity for observation and recording. Full scale walking talking visitations by ghosts, angels, or other venerated deceased (even wrestling, as with Jacob/Israel), reports of which were once commonplace, are now reduced to blurry images supposedly of Mary or Jesus burnt into tortillas. Photos of "UFOs," which were once ubiquitous, are rare unto vanishing in these days of improved video and photographic equipment. Thus, since there haven't been any recent recorded occurrences along the lines of Joshua 10:13, I'd personally evaluate that story as having the characteristics of legend, and would not consider it valid evidence of the supernatural.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90578658905284821642011-03-17T15:46:51.235-04:002011-03-17T15:46:51.235-04:00Anon 2: "And really you don't want to ar...Anon 2: "<i>And really you don't want to argue that all the fuss is about mentioning panspermia in biology classroom. You got to be kidding me.</i>"<br /><br />I agree that the "fuss" is about a lot more than panspermia. Most of the people who want to get ID in biology classes are religiously motivated. My only point is that ID itself isn't (necessarily) religious.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49408507045996898802011-03-17T15:44:09.810-04:002011-03-17T15:44:09.810-04:00Jud: "I'm quite curious how one can have...Jud: "<i>I'm quite curious how one can have reasonably convincing evidence of something supernatural, and I'd love to know what your thinking is on this.</i>"<br /><br />Briefly, in my case, it's a combination of philosophical reflection, authority, and personal experience.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91609201368887686502011-03-17T05:36:47.116-04:002011-03-17T05:36:47.116-04:00@ Bilbo
I would not consider panspermia to be a r...@ Bilbo<br /><br />I would not consider panspermia to be a religious idea. But this is not what the relevant ID proponents are arguing for. And the reduction to panspermia is the only way ID could be non-religious. And really you don't want to argue that all the fuss is about mentioning panspermia in biology classroom. You got to be kidding me.Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65416863304762814472011-03-16T20:55:53.856-04:002011-03-16T20:55:53.856-04:00Bilbo asks:
So what would make you think that som...Bilbo asks:<br /><br /><i>So what would make you think that something supernatural existed?</i><br /><br />I do have an answer, but I'm still awaiting a response to my previous inquiry to you along similar lines, if you'd be kind enough:<br /><br /><i>I'm quite curious how one can have reasonably convincing evidence of something supernatural, and I'd love to know what your thinking is on this.</i>Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-426320609473441732011-03-16T16:01:58.060-04:002011-03-16T16:01:58.060-04:00Anon: "Apart from the fact that natural proce...Anon: "<i>Apart from the fact that natural processes are sufficient to produce toaster ovens, yes if you don't believe that than that would imply that supernatural powers were needed.</i>"<br /><br />In this context, "natural" has two meanings. First, it can mean "non-supernatural." Second, it can mean "non-intelligent." I would argue that toaster ovens required an intelligent cause instead of a non-intelligent cause. But that intelligence was natural, not supernatural. <br /><br />Likewise, it seems possible that life as we know it was designed by an intelligent but natural cause, such as space aliens or time travellers.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77518789062957811262011-03-15T21:24:09.614-04:002011-03-15T21:24:09.614-04:00"Wait. I don't believe that natural proce..."Wait. I don't believe that natural processes are sufficient to produce toaster ovens. Does that mean supernatural powers were needed?"<br /><br />Apart from the fact that natural processes are sufficient to produce toaster ovens, yes if you don't believe that than that would imply that supernatural powers were needed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70963843414563984262011-03-15T15:50:43.492-04:002011-03-15T15:50:43.492-04:00Hi Jud,
Don't worry, it wouldn't nauseat...Hi Jud, <br /><br />Don't worry, it wouldn't nauseate me. ;) But it would take us far away from the original topic. <br /><br />"<i>If I (and preferably other witnesses, to reduce the possibility of hallucination) saw something that there was good reason to believe was non-illusory, and could not be accounted for by current science here on Earth or any extension thereof, then I'd simply think there were things in nature we didn't yet know about, not at all a surprising result.</i>"<br /><br />So what would make you think that something supernatural existed?Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47748533208896804682011-03-15T15:47:06.523-04:002011-03-15T15:47:06.523-04:00Anon 2: "one very central claims of ID is tha...Anon 2: <i>"one very central claims of ID is that natural processes are insufficient to produce and evolve life.</i>"<br /><br />Say rather, "insufficient to produce life as we know it." (And there is a broad spectrum among ID proponents on how much of evolution was done by strictly natural processes. Mike Gene, for example, thinks that after the origin of life, strictly natural processes can account for evolution. Behe thinks natural processes can account for at least speciation, and perhaps a couple of taxonomic levels above that. And so it goes until you get to YECs on the other end. <br /><br /> "<i>So the designer by definition has to have supernatural powers. Since we don't know of any physical entity with such powers gods are the only candidates left."</i><br /><br />Wait. I don't believe that natural processes are sufficient to produce toaster ovens. Does that mean supernatural powers were needed?Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74077075850180467982011-03-14T18:28:46.099-04:002011-03-14T18:28:46.099-04:00Mike Gene would agree with you. He and I have argu...<i>Mike Gene would agree with you. He and I have argued about this ad nauseam, and I don't want to start arguing about it again. I'll just say that even if it isn't science, it seems to me that it's possible to have reasonable evidence for it.</i><br /><br />I certainly don't want to nauseate you. ;-) And I imagine it's quite likely we'd disagree. Still, I'm quite curious how one can have reasonably convincing evidence of something supernatural, and I'd love to know what your thinking is on this.<br /><br />If you don't wish to say, I'll understand. However, if you'd be comfortable with simply agreeing to disagree, without having to get into any sort of drawn-out discussion about it, then I'll be happy to go first with my view:<br /><br />If I (and preferably other witnesses, to reduce the possibility of hallucination) saw something that there was good reason to believe was non-illusory, and could not be accounted for by current science here on Earth or any extension thereof, then I'd simply think there were things in nature we didn't yet know about, not at all a surprising result.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40294716497023136452011-03-14T17:13:16.197-04:002011-03-14T17:13:16.197-04:00Well Bilbo,
one very central claims of ID is that...Well Bilbo,<br /><br />one very central claims of ID is that natural processes are insufficient to produce and evolve life. So the designer by definition has to have supernatural powers. Since we don't know of any physical entity with such powers gods are the only candidates left.Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37726668868778235322011-03-14T15:36:32.320-04:002011-03-14T15:36:32.320-04:00Jud: "If the answer is "a supernatural e...Jud: "If the answer is "a supernatural entity," then ID is not a scientific theory, since it must rely on entities/forces for which there is no scientific backing (because if there were scientific backing, the entities/forces could be described as "natural")."<br /><br /> <a href="http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Mike Gene</a> would agree with you. He and I have argued about this <i>ad nauseam</i>, and I don't want to start arguing about it again. I'll just say that even if it isn't science, it seems to me that it's possible to have reasonable evidence for it. <br /><br />Anon: "<i>Perhaps BOTH are correct.</i>"<br /><br />Perhaps. Or perhaps both are incorrect.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50188874696260307332011-03-14T10:24:22.049-04:002011-03-14T10:24:22.049-04:00What ID says is that there is evidence that certai...What ID says is that there is evidence that certain features of the kind of life that exists on this planet were designed. Assuming ID is true, the correct answer to who the designer is may be no more than a trivial change in venue (which seemed to be Hoyle's view). Or the correct answer may be something supernatural (which is what most ID proponents believe). <br /><br /><b>Perhaps BOTH are correct.</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47626600553855073142011-03-14T09:26:32.196-04:002011-03-14T09:26:32.196-04:00Bilbo writes:
Assuming ID is true, the correct an...Bilbo writes:<br /><br /><i>Assuming ID is true, the correct answer to who the designer is may be no more than a trivial change in venue (which seemed to be Hoyle's view).</i><br /><br />Yes, now think of the necessary implications. <br /><br />If the answer is indeed a "trivial change in venue," and not a supernatural entity, that means evolution takes place, and took place wherever the designer(s) originated.<br /><br />If the answer is "a supernatural entity," then ID is not a scientific theory, since it must rely on entities/forces for which there is no scientific backing (because if there were scientific backing, the entities/forces could be described as "natural").Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-937403710268792062011-03-13T17:20:54.063-04:002011-03-13T17:20:54.063-04:00Anon: "Intelligent Design, as advocated by th...Anon: "<i>Intelligent Design, as advocated by the ID movement is -as the Dover ruling states categorically- not 'advanced aliens might be involved'. It's very specifically a *supernatural* creator.</i>"<br /><br />I believe that Judge Jones decided that natural designers, such as aliens, were implausible, and therefore ID could only be about the supernatural. He might be correct about the plausibility of aliens, but that doesn't mean ID is necessarily only about supernatural designers.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16361480351252500802011-03-13T17:17:26.582-04:002011-03-13T17:17:26.582-04:00Ross:
"I'm trying to figure out if ID i...Ross: <br /><br />"<i>I'm trying to figure out if ID is a sub category of Creationism or vice versa. I know that ID came out of Creationism, but which is the more abstract and broader category?</i>"<br /><br />I suggest that ID is the broader category, and that Creationism (design by a supernatural being) is a subcategory.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33718619985533013332011-03-13T17:15:15.222-04:002011-03-13T17:15:15.222-04:00Jud:
"Unless "intelligent design"...Jud: <br /><br />"<i>Unless "intelligent design" amounts to no more than a trivial change in venue (life evolved elsewhere and eventually became intelligent and technologically powerful enough to design life on Earth), then intelligent design requires an intelligent, powerful designer to arise with no living antecedent. There is no way to account for such an occurrence using scientific principles. Something literally "supernatural," i.e., religious, is necessary.</i>"<br /><br /> What ID says is that there is evidence that certain features of the kind of life that exists on this planet were designed. Assuming ID is true, the correct answer to who the designer is may be no more than a trivial change in venue (which seemed to be Hoyle's view). Or the correct answer may be something supernatural (which is what most ID proponents believe).Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31772054727271887922011-03-13T12:32:17.098-04:002011-03-13T12:32:17.098-04:00"I know that ID came out of Creationism, but ..."I know that ID came out of Creationism, but which is the more abstract and broader category?"<br /><br />The issue is one of a *supernatural* creator, and has to be. It is undeniably scientifically *possible* that the world was built by Magratheans and stocked by Preservers or whatever. We could be living on an artificial planet and be genetically engineered by advanced aliens. Or the planet could have been seeded by them.<br /><br />Is that true? I doubt it. Is it possible? Yes. Is it a scientific theory? Yes, and we can get to its truth by scientific methods.<br /><br />Intelligent Design, as advocated by the ID movement is -as the Dover ruling states categorically- not 'advanced aliens might be involved'. It's very specifically a *supernatural* creator.<br /><br />God. The textbook definition of God, the 'uncaused cause' who lives outside the universe and created the universe. <br /><br />There may be supernatural stuff (spoilers: there isn't), whether the supernatural exists or not (it's 'not', for fuck's sake, it's a completely meaningless term). If the supernatural exists (it doesn't), then, by definition, it's not science. It's the opposite of science. Which may be worth studying (if you're a stupid twat) but not in science class.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91446794142890210102011-03-13T06:20:28.932-04:002011-03-13T06:20:28.932-04:00I'm trying to figure out if ID is a sub catego...I'm trying to figure out if ID is a sub category of Creationism or vice versa. I know that ID came out of Creationism, but <i>which is the more abstract and broader category</i>?<br /><br />I think many people have it around the wrong way. Any comments?<br /><br />I'm not a fan of ID though. They are too 'on the fence' about who the designer(s) might be. I know that isn't a scientific question, but if one is seeking the truth, why limit oneself to only what can be examined within science?<br /><br />I like to see people being honest with their beliefs, even if that brings ridicule. Increasingly organisations such as Creation Ministries are enabling Christians to show that their faith has reasonable grounds, and that it is the evolutionists who have the non-rigorous science. <a href="http://creation.com" rel="nofollow">Creation by God is reasonable.</a>RossNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10972643317172549317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49675965405127649712011-03-12T13:26:50.577-05:002011-03-12T13:26:50.577-05:00It is the opinion that intelligent agency is disce...<i>It is the opinion that intelligent agency is discernable in nature. The anti-ID view is that intelligent agency is not discernable in nature.</i><br /><br /><i>Both are scientific viewpoints, and neither is intrinsically religious.</i><br /><br /><i>Intelligent Design, ie. as a pure concept which states that life was "designed" (and that's it, no frills), is not religious.</i><br /><br />We need a better class of armchair philosopher, I think.<br /><br />Unless "intelligent design" amounts to no more than a trivial change in venue (life evolved elsewhere and eventually became intelligent and technologically powerful enough to design life on Earth), then intelligent design requires an intelligent, powerful designer to arise with no living antecedent. There is no way to account for such an occurrence using scientific principles. Something literally "supernatural," i.e., religious, is necessary.Judnoreply@blogger.com