NOVA program: Judgement Day, Intelligent Design on Trial

[T'ai Chi]

The "intelligence" in intelligent design cannot be interpreted any other way.

Uh yeah it can.

The pure form of design detection does not address what the designer is. It could be aliens, for example.

Maybe a highly advanced alien race, the kind that SETI is looking for.

 

[uruk]

Uh yeah it can.

The pure form of design detection does not address what the designer is. It could be aliens, for example.

Maybe a highly advanced alien race, the kind that SETI is looking for.

Then where did the aliens come from and what designed them?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Then where did the aliens come from and what designed them?

Gee, the same place the natural energy that naturally created the natural Big Bang did? I don't think that question has been answered yet either.

But I'm still not sure how the question 'is there design?' requires

1) there to be only one designer, and
2) information on the designer's pant size and likes/dislikes

to be a valid question as some believe.

It is like you came across a rock. Turns out it is an arrowhead that has purposeful design. So there is a designer. You'll say that is a non-sensical inference because there may have been more than one designer and that it is a non-sensical inference because we didn't know the designer's name was Grok?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Evolution does not, by necessity, exclude the existance of a god.

And design detection doesn't necessarily exclude evolution.

For example, there are many people who believe 'god' set it all into motion, then evolution took over.

 

[Psi Baba]

If you really want to get fired up, the website has some readings to get you in the mood. Phillip Johnson shows what an IDiot he is and how proud he is for creating the wedge strategy here.

Wow, that interview was a veritable catalog of logical fallacies, not to mention all the hackneyed ID arguments. You would easily win the Bingo game even if you were playing "cover the card."

 

[Psi Baba]

Is ID a theory? I'd be interested to see how they can defend that. The only prediction I've seen ID make is that certain structures would prove to be "irreducibly complex", and that prediction was smashed to pieces.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I've yet to see anyone explain ID without referring to evolution or Darwin in some way. It can't be done. A refutation (especially one as poor as ID) doth not a theory make.


Just found out: WQED Pittsburgh is repeating the episode November 15 at 1:00am and 4:00 am.

 

[uruk]

The infinite recursion is a problem to just about everything. Take naturalism and the Big Bang. How did that happen?

It could mean that we still don't have a full understanding of the nature of time and the universe.

The 'solution' seems to be to define the question as non-sensical by saying everything was created at that time, so there was no before to speak about. But this is no better than saying 'god created', since we know energy cannot arise by spontaneous generation.

The universe does not have to conform to what we would consider "non-sensical" or otherwise, take for instance Quantum physics. Speaking of which, energy can come form "nothing" under the right circumstances.
See:
Virtual partical pair production: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles

Hawking radiation: http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html

The Casimir effect: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/9747

The infinite recursion I don't see as much of a problem for some religious thinkers. First, not all of them take a literal interpretation of any religious text. Not all of them are arguing 'there is only 1 god!'. If there is at least one, it answers the question of 'if' there was design, just as if there were 500.

Well not a whole lot becomes a problem when all you have to accept is "Goddidit" as an answer to your questions.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It could mean that we still don't have a full understanding of the nature of time and the universe.

OK, I agree. But I don't see how those proposing design detection are all claiming to have a full understanding of time and the universe, and moreover how pointing out the infinite regress problem is only a problem for the design detection people.

Speaking of which, energy can come form "nothing" under the right circumstances.

Virtual partical pair production: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles

It seems

However, the above summary is not the complete consensus view. Because virtual particles do not exist when you "look at them", but only turn up when you "turn away" they may also be viewed as a quantum bookkeeping mechanism. Many in the scientific community view them as an ad hoc abstraction that is required because our current view of reality as described by quantum mechanics is not complete. It is thought by this segment of physicists that virtual particles will no longer be required when a more complete view of quantum mechanics is integrated with general relativity and gravity in general.

isn't that closed of a case.

Well not a whole lot becomes a problem when all you have to accept is "Goddidit" as an answer to your questions.

I am glad you ignored my arrowhead example and furthermore ignored me saying that some don't require 'god' in their explanation, in fact it is out-of-scope for science.

 

[Paulhoff]

The infinite recursion is a problem to just about everything. Take naturalism and the Big Bang. How did that happen?

So, how did a so-called god jump into being all a once, something that is even more complex then a universe that it is supposed to have created.

Paul

 

[Tricky]

The problem with having aliens as designers is that they'd have to be here constantly tinkering with stuff. There is so much going on in the universe and conditions change so dramatically that to suppose that they could just seed the planet and know what is going to happen would require that they be virtually omniscient, i.e. gods.

Also, it doesn't follow that aliens would do this, yet take such pains to make sure they're not discovered. Why would they specifically create an intelligent species, then try as hard as they can to fool them?

 

[uruk]

Gee, the same place the natural energy that naturally created the natural Big Bang did? I don't think that question has been answered yet either.

Nice little sarcastic side step you took there. If we were created form an intelligent design, as ID proponents believe, why would that not also be the case for the "aliens"? Why would thier creation be any different from ours? And if it is different why could it not also apply to our creation?

But I'm still not sure how the question 'is there design?' requires

1) there to be only one designer, and
2) information on the designer's pant size and likes/dislikes

to be a valid question as some believe.

The number of designers and its/thier preference of clothes is irrelevent. what is relevent is that the design was intelligently created.
The "intelligent" part of ID implies that the design was though out by something or somethings.

That naturally leads to the question "what is or who are doing the designing".

ID'rs say that certain biological systems could not have evolved randomly. (irreducible complexity) Well, if the system did not come into being by itself, then how else if not by a designer or designers?

It is like you came across a rock. Turns out it is an arrowhead that has purposeful design. So there is a designer. You'll say that is a non-sensical inference because there may have been more than one designer and that it is a non-sensical inference because we didn't know the designer's name was Grok?

You know that is not what I am saying at all. You are clearly employing a strawman.
The number of designers is irrelevent. That fact that ID'rs are saying the design was thought out is.

 

[Tricky]

The Dover Rap​

I’m an ID kinda guy
An’ I work for the DI
An’ I’ll be there when the evolution
Fur and feathers fly

I b’lieve my home boy Behe
An’ before you giggle “tee hee”
Lemme tell that to me he
Is less full of crap than TP

He says “ID’s a theory”
But the judge is lookin’ leery
‘Cause no evidence is here, he
Thinks the argument is weary

He show ‘em a flagellum
“Irreducible” he tell ‘em
But it doesn’t seem to sell ‘em
They know feces when they smell ‘em

So I write the bitch Kitzmiller
That damn evolution shiller,
An’ I say I’m gonna kill her
‘Cause she called me a gorilla

I know that my opponants is
Collectin’ all their bonuses
By sayin’ all that stuff to dis
Us cdesign proponentsists

So kiss my ass Judge Jones
Don’t be pickin’ at my bones
And interpretin’ unknowns
‘Cause you haven’t got the stones.

 

[uruk]

OK, I agree. But I don't see how those proposing design detection are all claiming to have a full understanding of time and the universe, and moreover how pointing out the infinite regress problem is only a problem for the design detection people.

I never said anything of the sort. You were the one who brought up infinite recursion. I did not.
I was just responding to your remark about the problem of infinite recursion in science and how there is one possible solution to the problem.
Those who believe in god do not have a problem with infinite recursions either. They simply answer that god/gods have always existed. That the concept of a creation does not apply to them. I simply echoed that answer towards universe.

I have only been saying that ID, by default, implies a designer/designers (Correction, That should be God.)

It seems

isn't that closed of a case.

You seem to not have read the article about Hawking radiation. In there Hawking describes how a "virtual" particle can become a "real" particlel and continue to exist in the universe. And it complies with thermodynamics and entropy.

I am glad you ignored my arrowhead example and furthermore ignored me saying that some don't require 'god' in their explanation, in fact it is out-of-scope for science.

I did not. The arrowhead comment is on a different post that I was respondiong to. You will see my response to your arrowhead in my previous post.

Can you tell me one explination of ID that does not require god or designer/designers in it's explination?
Aliens would also require an explination of thier existance. If they are products of the universe as we are then they would require a designer also just as we would.

I will give you that "God" would not require an explination. (for the sake of the argument)

 

[uruk]

And design detection doesn't necessarily exclude evolution.

Nor did I say otherwise. Most or some ID'rs follow evolution. Evolution is not about biogenisis, ID is. That is the difference.
Evolution only make guesses at biogenisis (research is still on going), ID definitively states that something /somethings intelligent started and guided it.

For example, there are many people who believe 'god' set it all into motion, then evolution took over.

You are kind of reinforcing my argument here. I think that if you were corner an ID'er into stateing personaly what he/she thinks the designer is, they will invariably say God.

 

[articulett]

Just to be fair, some rebuttal from the 'other side':

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/needs_title.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/pbs_airs_its_inherit_the_wind.html

And more from the Muslim Intelligent Design side.
http://www.scienceislam.com/proof_from_truth.php

So many designers, but nary a lick of evidence from any of them... and all these designers have such mendacious spokespeople. So why are you getting your science from the bible and not the Quoran?

Ignorance is not a "point of view", T'ai.

 

[uruk]

Here is another difference, you can be a believer and still hold evolution to be true. Can you be an athiest and hold ID to be true?
If so, can someone explain the line of thought?

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

The Dover Rap​

I’m an ID kinda guy
An’ I work for the DI
An’ I’ll be there when the evolution
Fur and feathers fly...

I don't know if it's a conflict of interest, but you're nominated.

 

[fishbob]

And design detection doesn't necessarily exclude evolution.

For example, there are many people who believe 'god' set it all into motion, then evolution took over.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing the answer - except lying about it.
"I don't know" is perfectly valid. "It was designed" is not.

 

[Dunstan]

Here is another difference, you can be a believer and still hold evolution to be true. Can you be an athiest and hold ID to be true?
If so, can someone explain the line of thought?

It's logically possible:

"I do not believe in the existence of any gods. I believe that intelligent life on some other planet, let's call it Planet X, arose through evolution by natural selection. The Planet Xers then designed all life as it exists on Planet Earth."

But I'm not holding my breath waiting for someone to claim this.

 

[shadron]

I one truly wanted to be informed about the subject matter and do a little reading ahead of time, one could visit:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/index.php?pageid=dover.

There are also informative threads in this forum dealing with the matter.

One note of cuation. Some of the PBS stuff dealing with religion has been rather shoddily researched as of late. Nova occasionally passes off a piece that includes poor scientific analysis. This Nova episode might be good, but I'm going to reserve judgment until I view it.

Yeah, it's kinda too bad they can't get a decent peer review system going in television. Of course, you would also want to put off seeing it for, say, two years after the fact.

I found the reading the judge's order itself was great fun. As dry as those things can be, the dry humor and the irony is great.

I would also commend to you the reading of Philip Johnson's ("Father of ID") statement in the NOVA website. It's has some great insights and lots of shady thinking. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html)

"The Dover case, unfortunately, was a train wreck waiting to happen." (I'd sure like to know his opinion before the trial.)

"My view of the truth is that there is a creator. I don't know how long the creator took, but I think there was a process of creation, and the evolution that has occurred has occurred within the boundaries originally set. That would be my belief as of now. I tend to think that that will prevail, because I think it's the truth. But if it's not the truth, it won't prevail, and it shouldn't."