Intelligent design

ISAW

Newstalks moncrief show today had a guy on from the UK complaining about his packs not being taken in schools. He claimed time should be put aside for intelligent design and it wasnt creationism and didnt insist on a christian God. He suggested there was scientific evidence for a designer.

"intellignet design" is to me a reworking of creationism. It is pushed by fundamentalists particularly in the United States. AS i see it, One can accept god created the Univers or that God created souls and put them into man but this has not any bearing on the internals of biological science.

Tar.Aldarion

Scientific evidence for a designer.
Did he put forward this 'evidence'?

Gibs

Some useful links. Spread the word before this nonsense starts to gain a foothold....

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/pine.html
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/fraud.cfm

pH

ISAW wrote:

One can accept god created the Univers or that God created souls and put them into man but this has not any bearing on the internals of biological science.

Only if one is delusional* and has problems dealing with the reality of the world/universe they see around them.

And on intelligent design ... just say to them 'Wow you believe we were created by super intelligent Space Aliens! ... that's a freaky belief dude! ... this tends to rub them the wrong way.

*Not an insult - (see Dawkins 2006).

davros

This would be a good point to remind everyone of the lecture next week:

Creatures of Accident

Yeats Room, Mont Clare Hotel, Merrion Square, Dublin 2

8:00pm, Wednesday, December 06, 2006

The speaker is Professor Wallace Arthur, Department of Zoology, NUI Galway.

The Intelligent Design movement postulates that the complexity of living creatures is ‘irreducible’. That is, it is not explicable by reference only to natural processes and must, instead, be designed. Unlike more old-fashioned creationists, however, the design need not have taken a mere 6 days, but rather could have taken 3 or 4 billion years. In other words, evolution is accepted, but it is guided, or micro-managed, by a supreme being in order to ensure that it ends up producing humans.

‘Creatures of Accident’ argues against this view by explaining how a natural evolutionary process can lead not just to diversification within a level of complexity, as in many famous case studies like Darwin’s finches, but also to rises in complexity, which have led all the way from a world containing only single-celled creatures, to one containing creatures like humans, composed of many trillions of cells.

Wallace Arthur is Professor of Zoology at NUI Galway. He is the author of a number of books including Biased Embryos and Evolution. His latest book, Creatures of Accident: the rise of the animal kingdom was published in September. His particular area of interest is the evolution of development, or evo-devo as it is often termed.

Admission is €3 for members, €6 for non-members, to help defray costs.

5uspect

Those pamphlet pushers were on newsnight last night too, in the end Paxman just got fed up and cut off the interview and moved on to something else.

Anyway isn't there some guideline that any new material added to the scientific syllabus must go through at least 10 years of peer review before being accepted for educational purposes? I'm not sure where this applies (I think I read it in New Scientist so it must apply to the UK, I'll dig it out tonight if I can)

ISAW

pH wrote:

Only if one is delusional* and has problems dealing with the reality of the world/universe they see around them.

And on intelligent design ... just say to them 'Wow you believe we were created by super intelligent Space Aliens! ... that's a freaky belief dude! ... this tends to rub them the wrong way.

*Not an insult - (see Dawkins 2006).

No I would accept this. Intelligent design could also be attributed to an alien race. But the proponents are by and large Creationists so they wont expound that. Raelians or Scientologists might though. It is indeed the weakness of the position as far as a fundamentalist christian is concerned.

As regards being "delusional" see the other thread about the Pope and Islam and authotiry of scripture over in the Christian forum. Dawkings is a proponent of scientism! theology has the same rational base as science. it is not necessary to be atheist to be scientific! Nor is rational and reasonable religion to be limped in with fundamentalism. In essence subscribing any beliief which propounds absolutes (including science) is fundamentalist! In those threads I try to point out the weakness of assuming science to be a safe ontological and epistemological citadel.

To claim that it is proven that one is "delusuional" to believe in God and to base this aon argument from authority from a biased source like Dawkings is not a strong argument. there is no cognative dissonance here. One can believe in a creator God and believe in science.

one more comment, the "instrumentalist hypothesis" which fundamentalists (and as I have pointed out some if not all muslims ) subscribe to. This was used in the history of science to sidestrp accusations of heresy. galileo let his ego get in the way but great scientists like Roger Bacon if confronted with preaching heresy might say something like

roger Baconlike scientist wrote:

"well looking at the planets as if they were all moving about the Sun may not be true but it is an easier way to do things for the purpose of navigation. then again even if we can in no way measure it not to be true GOD could be making it look like the earth orbits the Sun and turns on an axis. Of course we know it isn't since the church fathers tell us it isnt. In reality it is only being made look that way beyond any measurable way of showing otherwise

Now because he claimed "God is doing it" Bacon could be criticised by people suggesting he was proving God wasnt doing it! Nice sidestep.

ISAW

davros wrote:

This would be a good point to remind everyone of the lecture next week:

Creatures of Accident

Yeats Room, Mont Clare Hotel, Merrion Square, Dublin 2

8:00pm, Wednesday, December 06, 2006

The speaker is Professor Wallace Arthur, Department of Zoology, NUI Galway.

i regret I will miss this talk as I will be abroad. Well not just the talk but the row (ahem I mean reasoned debate) afterwords.

I expect phrases like "muck to man", "tornadoes constructing airplanes" "man is older than coal" and the oft misquoted entropy law or second law of thermodynamics. Order from disorder

Fore warned is forearmed read this:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

Oh by the way on dating there are several techniques that might not be mentioned.

The geological column (a relative method with older fossils being lower and
radiometric dating (using half lives of radioactives) are frequently mentioned.

Other methods include
Dendrochronology - tree rings - with petrified trees this can extend back 1 million years - much older than 8000 BC 9 a biblical Date).

Chrons - the "flip" in the magnetic poles occurs I think about every 28,000 years. One can examine rocks and note where magnetic domains "flipped" and match these up with the fossil record.

Crater dating - irecently came across a paper by Eugene shoemaker (cant locate it at the moment) where he had proposed crater density. He was criticised because it didnt work on the Moon. But it turns out the Moon is so old that newer craters have obliterated and covered older ones.

Zombrex

The bizare thing is that ID is actually a rather silly argument if you believe in God.

If God exists and created the universe, then EVERYTHING is intelligently designed. That rock is intelligently designed. A rain drop is intelligently designed. Carbon atoms are intelligently designed.

The idea that life would some have to be some how more intelligently designed is nonsense. Everything, including all natural processes are intelligently designed, so if God exists then evolution, even as a natural process, is intelligently designed. ID theory becomes irrelivent, unless someone wants to claim that God couldn't have used evolution to make life, which would be funny because He uses millions of other natural processes, He designed, to do things

So what is the point of ID then? As ISAW says it is really Creationism in disguise. It is an attack at evolution, not because evolution is contrary to the idea of a designer God, but because evolution contradicts the literal Bible.

Obni

ISAW wrote:

Nor is rational and reasonable religion to be limped in with fundamentalism.

While I would agree that non-fundamental religion should not be regarded in the same light as fundamental religion, and more especially that non-fundamental followers of religion should not be regarded in the same light as fundamental followers of religion, however I would argue whether any religion can be regarded as rational or reasonable.
I may even make "rational and reasonable religion" my favourite alliterative oxymoron of 2006.

ISAW

Obni wrote:

While I would agree that non-fundamental religion should not be regarded in the same light as fundamental religion, and more especially that non-fundamental followers of religion should not be regarded in the same light as fundamental followers of religion, however I would argue whether any religion can be regarded as rational or reasonable.
I may even make "rational and reasonable religion" my favourite alliterative oxymoron of 2006.

Try the other thread on the Pope and rationality for that I havent time here.

coming back on topic

Maybe we could start an "Ignorant Design" movement to explain the multitude of cosmic screw-ups we see, eh?

Rhesus babis spring to mind... prehensile tails..the appendix. blood groups?

Obni

ISAW wrote:

Try the other thread on the Pope and rationality for that I havent time here. coming back on topic

I was commenting on something you posted in *this* thread.

Wicknight wrote:

So what is the point of ID then? As ISAW says it is really Creationism in disguise. It is an attack at evolution, not because evolution is contrary to the idea of a designer God, but because evolution contradicts the literal Bible.

ID is clearly part of the arsenal of the creationist movement in the U.S., and a thankfully lesser extent in Europe, although it is regularly stated to be not specifically christian in outlook, or indeed to claim god as the source of the designing intelligence; an alien agency would work as well. What the point of ID is not, is an attempt to offer a credible alternative to evolution as the process responsible for the development of living organisms, that can have any hope of success or longevity. But then its target audience is not the scientific community. Its main purpose seems to be to use people with an air of scientific credibility to present ID as an sound alternative to the general public. Most of the general public couldn't give a flying f*** whether Darwinian evolution or ID or neither is nearer the truth. What is left hanging in the air is a vague notion that there is some doubt being cast on whether evolution is completely sound, and sure didn't that bloke Hawking just admit he was completey wrong, and now they're saying dairy is good for you, ...
If the battleground was the research labs of the scientific world, ID could be dismissed as laughable, but ID is as much a marketing exercise as anything and is backed by people with media savvy and media access. Witness the favourite tactic of constantly emphasising that evolution is just a 'theory', as the use of 'theory' outside a scientific framework carries with it a sense of simple conjecture or hypothesis.

Those behind creationism and ID clearly view Darwin's presentation of natural selection as a mechanism capable of driving evolution without divine intervention as an event with massive and continuing impact on western religion (and surely divine intervention, or DI, is what is really meant when people refer to ID). If something so complex can be derived by simple processes without supernatural influence then maybe ...?

Next Wednesday's lecture should be rather lively, if the Q&A after Kevin Nolan's talk was anything to go by.

ISAW

Obni wrote:

I was commenting on something you posted in *this* thread.

something which basically stated "I disagree. But go and see ANOTHER thread for more on this argument" we won't waste space on it here.


Here are the actual words

As regards being "delusional" see the other thread about the Pope and Islam and authotiry of scripture over in the Christian forum. Dawkings is a proponent of scientism! theology has the same rational base as science. it is not necessary to be atheist to be scientific! Nor is rational and reasonable religion to be limped in with fundamentalism.

My comment clearly indicate that I disagree but discussion of "delusion" is OT for this thread. "Having a go" at mainstream religion or rediculing the church isn't part of the argument on ID. Mainstrean christianity does not subscribe to "creationism" in the way Creationists do. Well ID or young Earth Creationists.

ID is clearly part of the arsenal of the creationist movement in the U.S., and a thankfully lesser extent in Europe, although it is regularly stated to be not specifically christian in outlook, or indeed to claim God as the source of the designing intelligence; an alien agency would work as well.

I would apply Occams razor to this. If Aliens seeded Earth with life who created the Aliens? And who created them and so on. So you end up with the conclusions that either
A. A long chain of aliens seeding life begins by "accident" according to classical evolution theory. OR
B. God created the first Aliens in the chain.

Now in both cases why not needlessly multiply the intricacies? why not look at the simpler case? Why not assume the same result from a much simpler chain of events i.e. that it happened here on Earth? why add in the long chain of aliens?

So it is simpler to assume that
A No chain of unnecessary aliens and life began here OR
B No chain of unecessaary aliens and God began life here.

One big problem with an "off World" origin is that uit is impossible to ascertain any artefact of them. Thus the absence of evidence becomes "proof".

... What is left hanging in the air is a vague notion that there is some doubt being cast on whether evolution is completely sound, and sure didn't that bloke Hawking just admit he was completey wrong, and now they're saying dairy is good for you, ...
If the battleground was the research labs of the scientific world, ID could be dismissed as laughable, but ID is as much a marketing exercise as anything and is backed by people with media savvy and media access.

Indeed. but dont assume science is above this! Take George Smoot and his "face of God" comment. Now if you argue that it isnt "science" but "scientists" that should be criticised then wher is your "scientific world" surely any "mindset" it has (if indeed one exists) is represented by the scientific "community". How then can this community which you seem to claim must distance itself from religion award the Nobel Prize to someone who has ascribes to religious metaphor most likely in an endeavour to appeal to popular culture?

Next Wednesday's lecture should be rather lively, if the Q&A after Kevin Nolan's talk was anything to go by.

do you video the talks? Better still the Q and A sessions?

pH

ISAW wrote:

My comment clearly indicate that I disagree but discussion of "delusion" is OT for this thread. "Having a go" at mainstream religion or rediculing the church isn't part of the argument on ID. Mainstrean christianity does not subscribe to "creationism" in the way Creationists do. Well ID or young Earth Creationists.

No *you* made it On Topic with your initial comment :

ISAW wrote:

AS i see it, One can accept god created the Univers or that God created souls and put them into man but this has not any bearing on the internals of biological science.

Both beliefs have exactly the same amount of evidence, in fact as wrong as it is ID at least has some pseudo-scientific arguments that could convince the stupid, whereas 'creation' and souls lack even those.

Don't pretend that ID is somehow a baseless and evidence lacking belief, yet belief in God is somehow better grounded. If you want to believe in a magic Sky God for your own reasons, why can't folks be free to believe in ID?

ISAW

pH wrote:

No *you* made it On Topic with your initial comment :

My inital comments were not about mainstrean christianity as far as I remember.

If you want to believe in a magic Sky God for your own reasons, why can't folks be free to believe in ID?

They are free to believe but mainstream Christianity isnt "magic sky God" . If you want to suggest it is start another thread or discuss it in the ones mentioned. If you want to suggest that science is an all coherent system with underlying fundamental rules and methods which scientists follow then I also think there are problems with that but I wont rehearse it here. Most of my outline of my position has already been posted.

there is a BIG difference between belief in a God and insisting that it is a scientifically proven fact and deserves equal time on a science syllabus at school!

Nor is belief in science as cosy as you seem to think! Science is also underpinned by philosophy.

JuliusCaesar

YouTube's answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24

Obni

ISAW wrote:

My comment clearly indicate that I disagree but discussion of "delusion" is OT for this thread.

OK, point taken about going off-topic.
I do however intend to start a new thread when I finish Dawkin's "The God Delusion" (which I'm currently ploughing thorugh) and Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" which I have yet to start and which on past experience will be a more challenging task. Given your apparent lack of enthusiasm for RD, I'm sure you'll contribute.

I'm intrigued by the idea of taping the meeting, does anyone know whether such a thing is possible? Would there need to be waivers signed by all attendees?

Obni

ISAW wrote:

A No chain of unnecessary aliens and life began here
B No chain of unecessaary aliens and God began life here

If you start reducing the duplicate terms

Strike "No chain of unnecessary aliens and"
A life began here
B God began life here

Strike here"
A life began
B God began life

I guess that is as concise and elegant a summary of the true basis of the ID debate as one can get.

ISAW

Obni wrote:

OK, point taken about going off-topic.
I do however intend to start a new thread when I finish Dawkin's "The God Delusion" (which I'm currently ploughing thorugh) and Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" which I have yet to start and which on past experience will be a more challenging task. Given your apparent lack of enthusiasm for RD, I'm sure you'll contribute.

Actually I admire dawkins. he is a clever guy and a clear thinker.
But his opersonal believ have him nearly frothing at the mouth in the presence of anything religious. that is not objective in my view.

I'm intrigued by the idea of taping the meeting, does anyone know whether such a thing is possible? Would there need to be waivers signed by all attendees?

i would think it depends on what a "public place" is. Astronomy Ireland video all therir meetings. If you use a camera on the street what you capture can not be uised for leagal evidence but I would think that a hired room is a "PRIVATE" meeting (even if it is a public one ) . If people are informed in advance it should not be a problem. also, TWO radio mikes would be helpful. This assists both in the introductions and speakers and in the Q and A sessions. It really is annoying to watched a recording and not know what the question is that the speaker is answering.

usually any college "video society" or the like has access to this equipment and the technical skills to use them. You could also approach certain public sector bodies (I wont say who here) top provide some ofg their "publicity of science" loot.