Intelligent Design

Dades

In the light of the recent threads re Intelligent Design (ID) in other forums, I just thought I'd throw out some thoughts under our own particular umbrella here.

Solas has already shown what can happen when ID is acknowledged as witnessed in an earlier thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054867366

ID is for the most part argued by, or at least hijacked by Christians seeking to further the Christian agenda. Of course one can understand why "evidence" of ID is embraced by religion. It turns science from (general) foe to friend. In reality it (IMO) has little to do with the defined gods of world religions, rather than the concept that we were created by an entity. If anything, evidence of ID seems to me to drop somewhere in between

1. Defined, scriptured notions of how the world came into being, and
2. The atheistic notion that no such creator figure exists.

I'm just wondering has anyone ignored the goldrush to claim god's signature, and seen or read any convincing evidence of an ancient "designer"?

ps I have flu, so am quite possibly delusional.

[Carl Sagan's [URL="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671004107/qid=1136483859/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-9355166-2936006?s=books&v=glance&n=283155"]Contact[/URL] (and I won't spoil it for those who have not) gives the best notion of a "god's signature" I have come across. Anyone read it?]

Rev Hellfire

Is that the book based on the film ?

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

[Carl Sagan's [URL="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671004107/qid=1136483859/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-9355166-2936006?s=books&v=glance&n=283155"]Contact[/URL] (and I won't spoil it for those who have not) gives the best notion of a "god's signature" I have come across. Anyone read it?]

I know what you are talking about, though I have not read the book

That a message in base 11 in Pi can be used to form a perfect circle, which is a message from God

Its a nice idea but there are some fundamental flaws in the idea (which doesn't really matter since it is only a work of fiction, he isn't claiming its true)

The sequence of numbers does appear in Pi, but then every sequence of numbers appears in Pi
Also, not even God can change the value of Pi, so God would have had to construct existance around the concept of hiding a message in Pi, which seems rather unlikely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_(novel)

Back on topic I don't recall ever reading or hearing about someone suggesting ID is a viable theory without bring the notion of religion into it. But then maybe that is just because the whole debate has been hi-jacked as you said by Creationists

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Is that the book based on the film ?

No, the book was based on the radio play. The radio play was based on the broadway show. The broadway show was based on the film. The film was based on an advertisment for oranges ...

robindch

> ID is for the most part argued by, or at least hijacked by
> Christians seeking to further the Christian agenda.

Close. It's a conscious development of creationism by christians in which they attempted to change the nature and presentation of the general problem that they have with the knowledge-based world. Take a look at the 'Wedge Document' produced by the DI:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20Responses&id=2101

...which shows, from first principles, how the strategy of introducing ID is intended to work and what its aims are.

> I'm just wondering has anyone ignored the goldrush to
> claim god's signature, and seen or read any convincing
> evidence of an ancient "designer"?

Take a look at JC's postings in the christianity forum -- amongst lots of other hairy-assed claims, he's said time after time, that DNA is incontrovertible evidence of creation (or in yesterday's wild potshot, that the state of Polar bears is evidence of creation + fall). His supporting logic is that he can't imagine how it might have arisen naturally and all the work must therefore have been done by his own particular (unexplained) deity.

To the best of my knowledge, more sober analysts haven't found any natural phenomenon so complex that a reasonable explanation is unthinkable at some point in the future. Which, in itself, is a pretty remarkable thought.

Take a look at the good folks over in The Edge at:

http://www.edge.org

...for some more thoughts on the above.

Asiaprod

For myself, I am open on the issue. In other words, I don’t have a clue. It could be evolution, it could be ID. At present, based on the evidence, I favor the evolution approach. One problem I have always had is that space is very big and we are the only ones here so far that we know of. To me, this tends to support the evolution theory. Either that, or the fact that everyone else in the known universe is totally invisible to us. I have never heard a religious explanation as to why space is so big and only earth is populated. I will keep an open mind on the issue. If some one proves that ID is after all the way it happened, then I will accept it. Till then, I will stick with Darwin.
[FONT=ＭＳ Ｐゴシック]What I will not accept is the Fundies/Creationist Genesis approach with their 6 day creation scenario and their account of the Flood. Added to the cheek of that one particular chappy (who has already been mentioned, so I wont bother to do it again) attacking my favorite fish, the mighty coelacanth. I really believe there is an ulterior motive to what these individuals are up to. All this talk of ID has stirred the urge in me to go watch 2001 Space Odyssey again. It’s funny that this movie has never come up in relation to ID supporters.[/FONT]
[FONT=ＭＳ Ｐゴシック](For our Christian friends who pop in to chat here, I respect the Christian’s approach that God made all, but that should not be interpreted to mean I support it). [/FONT]

Dades

I woke up this morning thinking - what did I post yesterday??

Wicknight, I've never read an analysis of the notion in Contact (the novel that pre-dates the movie, that is...) - very curious indeed. Still - if you subscribe to the notion that an entity can create a universe it doesn't seem too far a stretch to believe that maths itself can be manipulated? Not that I claim to know much about maths.

Still it remains one of my favorite Sci-fi novels ever - together with 2001: A Space Odyssey. I thought about mentioning that in my original post too, Asiaprod, but then thought a bit more about it. [Spoilers - but surely we all know the notion by now?] The monolith that appears on the earth, and then the moon appears to me the be intelligent intervention, rather than intelligent design.

If we were to find a monolith of that kind buried deep in the earth it would raise every question imaginable. No doubt various scriptures would be scoured until dubious references were to found to a black, perfectly formed slab of stone. Religion would be protected at all cost. The end of the world would probably be upon us too.

Asiaprod wrote:

If some one proves that ID is after all the way it happened, then I will accept it. Till then, I will stick with Darwin.

Curious here - can't ID co-exist with Darwin? Creationsim, obviously no, but don't some ideas of ID account only for the very beginning of life - after which point Darwin's theorys kick in?

robindch wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, more sober analysts haven't found any natural phenomenon so complex that a reasonable explanation is unthinkable at some point in the future. Which, in itself, is a pretty remarkable thought.

The answer I'd expect from you robindch, and one I'm inclined to agree with (for the moment). Will check out your links this morning too.

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

I woke up this morning thinking - what did I post yesterday??

Were you on the booze last night?, shame on you for coming home in a state were you could turn on the computer and think. I thought the recognized procedure was after 20 mins of looking for the key and 10 mins trying to get it in the lock. The door open, you announce you are home, and promptly collapsed on the floor. You are obviously not playing by the rules.

I thought about mentioning that in my original post too, Asiaprod, but then thought a bit more about it.

What!!! you came home in a state where you could think? Double shame on you.

The monolith that appears on the earth, and then the moon appears to me the be intelligent intervention, rather than intelligent design.

Now, that is an interesting avenue to explore, but then as we know it, we are the only sentient beings so far to inhabit the universe

Curious here - can't ID co-exist with Darwin? Creationsim, obviously no, but don't some ideas of ID account only for the very beginning of life - after which point Darwin's theorys kick in?

Its the Fundies approach that troubles me. Yes, life evolving could well be a mix of Evolution and ID, I will pass on the creationist bit however.

robindch

> The answer I'd expect from you robindch

Ach, I'm typecast!

pH

Here's a podcast which though a little long and the quality is not great has Dembski (one of IDs main proponents) and Shermer (Skeptic magazine) have a very civil debate and serves as a reasonable introduction to 'Scientific ID'.

Dades

Asiaprod wrote:

What!!! you came home in a state where you could think? Double shame on you.

I'll have you know, in spite of the slurs you're spreading, the strongest thing I had last night was a lemsip.

Asiaprod wrote:

Now, that is an interesting avenue to explore, but then as we know it, we are the only sentient beings so far to inhabit the universe

Thats what they want us to think. :eek:

robindch wrote:

Ach, I'm typecast!

Think of yourself as consistent!

Dades

pH wrote:

Here's a podcast which though a little long and the quality is not great has Dembski (one of IDs main proponents) and Shermer (Skeptic magazine) have a very civil debate and serves as a reasonable introduction to 'Scientific ID'.

Listening to this - interesting.
When do they start pulling each others beards?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Intelligent Design=Bull****
nuff said

the real ramon

Yeah, creationism is a non-starter. Evolution is a very reasonable explanation of the complexity of life, the only question is did some being or beings cause the whole thing to start in the first place. I'll remain open-minded till I die on the question of God or Goddess, but it's always appeared to me that if a God did exist who caused the universe to come into existence then the only thing you could say were his/her words are the laws of the universe, hence in something a lot of Christians have trouble accepting is that Creationism and the Bible contradict the word of God!

Zillah

Asiaprod wrote:

One problem I have always had is that space is very big and we are the only ones here so far that we know of. To me, this tends to support the evolution theory. Either that, or the fact that everyone else in the known universe is totally invisible to us. I have never heard a religious explanation as to why space is so big and only earth is populated. I will keep an open mind on the issue.

Thats kind of all over the place. For one we don't know the universe is empty of life. In fact its quite the contrary, the vast majority of astronomers, biologists etc are convinced that given the incredibly vast size of the universe and the apparently high number of extrasteller planets that the existence of life outside earth is highly likely.

One of the main problems with us finding them is that the only way we could is through radio signals or something more advanced. So that requires intelligent life. Radio signals lose coherency over time/distance which would make it hard to detect them, not to mention that fact that the universe is saturated with electromagnetic waves of all kinds anyway. Put on top of that the fact that a fractional percent of space is being "watched" at any one time and the chances of detecing life are slim.

Finally, surely if earth was the only place with life on it, it supports the idea of ID or a judeochristian God?

Dades

I think I agree with those points, Zillah.

I'm of the opinion that there probably is some form of life elsewhere, even if it is only algae growing in a puddle a million light years away. But I doubt that we'll ever see communication with other life due to the vastness of space and time.

And that (unproven) opinion to me suggests no intelligent design.

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

even if it is only algae growing in a puddle a million light years away.

Interestingly enough such a puddle of algae may only be a few lightminutes away. Europa, one of jupiter's moons, is covered in ice, but its quite possible that there are oceans beneath the ice, and many scientists believe that some form of life could exist in those oceans. Aside from that, they havn't even gotten a rover to Mars' poles yet.

Also, if you're willing to concede that Algae may exist, why is any degree of life unlikely? Unless those algae popped into existence as they are without any more primitive predecessors, then they must have ancestors. And if they are different from their forebears, then it stands to reason that their descendents could be unlike them. Add a few million years and you could have intelligence.

But I doubt that we'll ever see communication with other life due to the vastness of space and time.

Which may not be as big a problem as it seems. Statistically, if there is other life in the rest of the universe, its likely that there are intelligences laughably more advanced than us. And in that case its their responsibility to make contact. The problem is that they may have quantum based communication that can traverse the distance instantly, we simply have no receivers suited to recieving such a signal. By the time we discover the ability to recieve such signals, their original radio waves might reach us anyway. Interesting little conundrum.

On another note entirely, I just finished listening to the Shermer/Dembski discussion. Very interesting, and in fairness Dembski made a far more compelling position for ID than I expected. I still remain thoroughly unconvinced of its correctness, but I do have some more respect for certain proponents.

Tar.Aldarion

I believe there is proof from the rocks that some form of life once existed on mars? and I think it is quite likely that there should be on europa fro m the documentary about it.

Zillah

I don't believe the Mars life question was conclusively answered. They found what could have been bacterial fossils in some rocks, but they can't be sure. That was the state of things last time I heard anything.

Tar.Aldarion

Ah yes, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html
Articles strongly point towards there being life there but we cannot be sure.
From the size and age of the universe it is highly probable that there is a lot of life out there to discover.

Zillah

Good link.

legspin

I would suggest that on the argument of ID that one should read
"The Science of the Discworld III" by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen

I have yet to see or hear a better put down of a moronic idea:D

Asiaprod

Zillah wrote:

That's kind of all over the place. For one we don't know the universe is empty of life.

I never said it was. I simply stated a fact. The fact is we do not know (at this time) of any other species other than ourselves. Just for the record, I am one of those who are 100% convinced that we are not alone.:eek:

In fact its quite the contrary, the vast majority of astronomers, biologists etc are convinced that given the incredibly vast size of the universe and the apparently high number of extrasteller planets that the existence of life outside earth is highly likely.

Yes. like I said above. I believe we are not alone.

One of the main problems with us finding them is that the only way we could is through radio signals or something more advanced. So that requires intelligent life.

Does this imply there is such a thing as un-intelligent life. Maybe we have already been contacted many times, but we are so un-intelligent that we failed to noticed it.

Radio signals lose coherency over time/distance which would make it hard to detect them, not to mention that fact that the universe is saturated with electromagnetic waves of all kinds anyway. Put on top of that the fact that a fractional percent of space is being "watched" at any one time and the chances of detecting life are slim.

Just because we cant see them does not mean they cant see us. Again, maybe they have already detected us.

Finally, surely if earth was the only place with life on it, it supports the idea of ID or a judeochristian God?

It most certainly does not. All it tells us is how unique our planet is, and how lucky we are to be here having this conversation.

Dades

Zillah wrote:

Also, if you're willing to concede that Algae may exist, why is any degree of life unlikely?

Um, I wasn't conceding anything. I've always believed there to be life elsewhere in the cosmos. I only mentioned algae to allude to the fact that it doesn't necessarily have to be intelligent.

The Drake Equation is an interesting way to look at it.
Of course the problem is that some of the factors in the equation involve a lot of conjecture.

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

Um, I wasn't conceding anything. I've always believed there to be life elsewhere in the cosmos. I only mentioned algae to allude to the fact that it doesn't necessarily have to be intelligent.

Don't be put off by the word "concede". My point is simply that if you think Algae could exist, is it not logical that what came before the Algae was less advanced, and what comes after would be more advanced, and therefore intelligent life would be quite likely.

The Drake Equation is an interesting way to look at it.
Of course the problem is that some of the factors in the equation involve a lot of conjecture.

Estimates based on guesses

Asiaprod wrote:

Maybe we have already been contacted many times, but we are so un-intelligent that we failed to noticed it.

A species of superior intellect would not attempt to make contact with a technology it knows we don't understand.

For example, if you went out into a field looking for your dog, you would shout his name. You wouldn't use a radio transmitter in the hopes that he might understand, you know damn right radio is beyond him.

Does this imply there is such a thing as un-intelligent life

Well, yes. I'd consider a virus to be unintelligent. It just depends on your definition of intelligence. Its not on/off, its a spectrum, and the closer a creature is to us the more difficult it is to describe them as unintelligent. A chimpanzee for example, is highly intelligent as animals go. I'd consider my dog to be extremely intelligent, as dogs go. Suffice to say, for this discussion I would define intelligence as as smart as a human or higher. So yes, there is unintelligent life.

It most certainly does not. All it tells us is how unique our planet is, and how lucky we are to be here having this conversation.

Yes, it does. The bible spoke of God's creation of earth and the life on it. If there is life elsewhere is ruins the bibles earthocentric outlook. If there is no life elsewhere it supports that outlook.

pH

Yes, it does. The bible spoke of God's creation of earth and the life on it. If there is life elsewhere is ruins the bibles earthocentric outlook. If there is no life elsewhere it supports that outlook.

It also deals a serious blow to Christianity ... "God so loved this world he sent his only son .. etc"

If Christianity is "true" then either we're alone, or we're very special. I suppose that other life may exist that had never "fallen", but still God's *only* son is a one shot deal!

Dades

pH wrote:

If Christianity is "true" then either we're alone, or we're very special. I suppose that other life may exist that had never "fallen", but still God's *only* son is a one shot deal!

You can be sure that if we ever confirmed intelligent life on another planet that there would be serious side-stepping and "re-interpreting" of scriptures to allow for it.

If something in scripture is shown to be inaccurate - it's usually then claimed to be "metaphorical" only.

Tar.Aldarion

Exactly, the priest that taught me in secondary school said as much (fair play to him for having faith anyway )
he gave examples such as god creating the world in 7 days, adam and eve etc and said they were just, well, stupid to believe in in this day and age and that they must therefore be metaphores. The church will change to accept things.

legspin

I would have a bit more respect for them if they didn't use the metaphor arguement as a get out of jail free card.
It smacks of desperation and is just a feeble attempt at backtracking on a premise that has proven to be false. If we tried that we would be laughed at and with good reason.

Dades

legspin wrote:

I would have a bit more respect for them if they didn't use the metaphor arguement as a get out of jail free card.

Are you saying you have more respect for creationists because they refuse to play the metaphor card?

solas

[Carl Sagan's Contact (and I won't spoil it for those who have not) gives the best notion of a "god's signature" I have come across. Anyone read it?]

is my favourite movie. friend bought me the book and dvd for christmas, but havent got into the book yet.
I always considered this pretty much right there when it comes to "gods signature".

apologies, didn't get past the first post

Dades

solas wrote:

is my favourite movie. friend bought me the book and dvd for christmas, but havent got into the book yet.
I always considered this pretty much right there when it comes to "gods signature".

The movie is great - though changed somewhat from the book.

I delayed reading the book for ages having seen the movie plenty of times - but finally read it last year and cannot recommend it enough. Get into it!

solas

sagan was a bit of a junkie in his younger days, no doubt he's had plenty of "wormhole" experiences

legspin

The Atheist wrote:

Are you saying you have more respect for creationists because they refuse to play the metaphor card?

Ummmmm:o

But no, for that shower of lunatics I have nothing but contempt, but a least you know where they stand.

The metaphorists (?) are almost more infuriating because wooly thinking is much harder to counter

Asiaprod

Zillah wrote:

Yes, it does. The bible spoke of God's creation of earth and the life on it. If there is life elsewhere it ruins the bibles earthocentric outlook. If there is no life elsewhere it supports that outlook.

No it does not. It is not that simple. For that response to be appropriate one would need to be a believer in the bible and have faith in the Judeo-Christian God. This board is an Atheist/Agnostic forum and the bible and God are both subjects of dispute here. The bible is not usually held to be the final word on anything. If a person has absolutely no belief in the bible, or considers it to be a book of myths, half truths, speculation or wishful thinking, despite holding some great wisdom, then how does finding extraterrestrial life support or deny the bible? For the purpose of this discussion, you can neither support nor deny a myth. If we did find life out there, it would be all to easy to say that our earthly edition of the bible did not talk about other life forms since it was aimed at a far less advanced civilization that had not even mastered the rudiments of flight. I see this in much the same way as you mentioned the futility of calling your dog using radio communications.

Besides, although my knowledge of the contents of the bible is limited, I am not aware that it was ever written that life is only known to have taken place on this earth. I think it left the door wide open; did the bible not talk about Ezekiel's space ship? So as you can see, it’s already written in, and before anyone says it, no this does not in IMHO support the validity of the bible. It is all too easy to twist existing vague texts to support new concepts. All that would happen if we found extraterrestrial life is that events in the bible would be expanded upon by some brilliant new theologian to encompass this new revelation and we would have an infallible announcement on the issued. End of problem, since it would once again be a matter of faith--back on the Mobius strip again).

I am going to stick with Occam's razor on this one in that we can explain everything without assuming the extra metaphysical baggage of a Divine Being. However, having said that, if that new life form also had their version of a bible, then I would have to seriously reconsider my position, which would then probably lean more towards ID. Till then, I will keep religion out of science where it only acts to confuse, dictate or flavor opinions.

Zillah

Ok, im not sure how to respond to that...

For that response to be appropriate one would need to be a believer in the bible and have faith in the Judeo-Christian God.

No. The point stands regardless of your point of view. "Facts that support an earthocentric outlook of the universe support fundamentalist christian teachings."

it would be all to easy to say that our earthly edition of the bible did not talk about other life forms since it was aimed at a far less advanced civilization

Completely intolerable to fundamentalist christians. They won't accept that the world might not have literally been made in six days, but you think that that is likely?

Asiaprod

Zillah wrote:

Ok, im not sure how to respond to that...

Completely intolerable to fundamentalist christians. They won't accept that the world might not have literally been made in six days, but you think that that is likely?

Thanks for the reply Zillah, I am a little confused by the question. Could you expand on it and then I can answer.

Zillah

We've gotten kind of tangled up.

I made the point that I would summarise thusly: "Facts that support an earthocentric outlook of the universe support fundamentalist christian teachings."

You seemed to disagree with this, saying "It most certainly does not. All it tells us is how unique our planet is, and how lucky we are to be here having this conversation."

...and your reasoning seemed to be:

"If we did find life out there, it would be all to easy to say that our earthly edition of the bible did not talk about other life forms since it was aimed at a far less advanced civilization"

I disagreed, saying that fundamentalist Christians believe that the world was made in six days, and that we are all descended from two people and similar beliefs, so I find it highly unlikely that they would use such reasoning as you stated above.

You also seemed to mistakenly assume that I meant that would mean the bible was ultimately correct.


But really, I don't think we're really disagreeing with each other here, I think our points of view kinda shot right passed each other.

Asiaprod

Zillah wrote:

We've gotten kind of tangled up.
But really, I don't think we're really disagreeing with each other here, I think our points of view kinda shot right passed each other.

Aha, glad we sorted that out. That was fun. Thanks for your point of view:)

toiletduck

just a theory?

Zombrex

toiletduck wrote:

just a theory?

lol .. saw that before Christmas, was laughing out loud in work .. damn Onion

Asiaprod

toiletduck wrote:

just a theory?

Hahaha, that was very cool. I love that expression, I am going to use it a lot
"a theory in crisis"

Zillah

Although the vast majority of people reading will already know this, I feel its important to note that The Onion is a mock newspaper.

That is all. Please return to laughing.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote:

Although the vast majority of people reading will already know this, I feel its important to note that The Onion is a mock newspaper.

That is all. Please return to laughing.

:v:

robindch

> just a theory?

I wonder if any creationists looked at that and had a giggle? Or looked at the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/) and had a good belly laugh?

I'm asking coz, early last year, I sat through the Life of Brian with a religious zealot and this person laughed in all the right places -- even that hilarious bit with "The Way of the Gourd; No! The Way of the Sandal! Heretic! [slap]". At the end of it, the person was simply unable to apply the satire of what they'd seen to the reality of what they were involved with. Going on from that, I wondered if religious people in general were simply just bad at abstraction, or relating one situation to another?

pfff... any thoughts?

Tar.Aldarion

Zillah wrote:

Although the vast majority of people reading will already know this, I feel its important to note that The Onion is a mock newspaper.

That is all. Please return to laughing.

Ah I see, I was telling myself that that had to be a pisstake, it had to be!
very good

Zillah

Well, the difference between "The life of Brian"/Christianity and IntelligentFalling/Intelligent Design is that the later was quite clearly written in a mocking and disparaging tone.

The Life of Brian has a lot of blasphemy and lack of respect, but few would claim that it was an attempt at making a mockery of Christianty. Intelligent Falling however could be seen as an obvious attack on Intelligent Design.

(Wow, that was very awkward to write...)

Of course its very much a matter of opinion, but I see the Intelligent Falling piece as being a degree more insulting.

the real ramon

Zillah wrote:

Of course its very much a matter of opinion, but I see the Intelligent Falling piece as being a degree more insulting.

Yeah, it bordered on the contemptuous, whereas 'Life of Brian' was just satire. Still, I did have quite a chuckle to meself reading the piece. The Onion is just brilliant, the humour is just 'straight-faced' enough to make the pieces seem believable as real stories. Deadly!

ronbyrne2005

horizon bbc2 thursday 9pm -intelligent design etc.

Dades

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

horizon bbc2 thursday 9pm -intelligent design etc.

Looks interesting.

I'll be kicking some shins in soccer Thursday night, so unless I finally get the VCR/NTL cable mess fixed I'll miss it.

Lot's of religious stuff in the media these days. On Newstalk there was a discussion over the w/e re the impact of Christianity in the US. I think it was The Wide Angle with Karen Coleman, which you might be able to get as a podcast.