I have ‘faith’ in science. 
Faith without works doesn’t work.
I believe that science will evolve to prove ID. 
| Quote (kenny_b @ Dec. 02 2005,15:38) |
| I believe that science will evolve to prove ID. |
We shall see. Right now evolution/big bang is the prevailing theory. If the data is conclusive and the results are testable and repeatable as is the burden in all of science, then yup, ID may win out. I am very skepical of that happening though until someone invents the God-o-meter.
Bubba, you’ve characterized the issue as big bang and evolution vs. ID. Evolution is not necessarily inconsistent with ID. They answer different questions.
| Quote (TomS @ Dec. 02 2005,16:00) |
| Bubba, you’ve characterized the issue as big bang and evolution vs. ID. Evolution is not necessarily inconsistent with ID. They answer different questions. |
Explain please Tom.
Evolution explains how species arise through mutation and selection. ID explains how things in general came to be. Different questions.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| If the data is conclusive and the results are testable and repeatable as is the burden in all of science, |
I hope somebody has a WHOLE LOT of Semtex and a WHOLE LOT of time to test the theory. I just hope they let me know when they plan to push the button!
D – buying a ticket to Venus to visit Elvis…
Additionally, there never will be a God-o-meter - the supernatural is about faith, not empirical evicence. Two different epistemological categories. If we had a God-o-meter, then we’d know right away we were not dealign with a supernatural being, and hence it couldn’t be God. So as long as the faith based theory doe snot directly contradict some part of the scientific theory, they can both be true. ID is not the same as special creationism, rather the latter is just one subset of theories of the former, and that’s pretty much the only theory on the table that conflicts direclty with Darwinian evolution.
| Quote (TomS @ Dec. 02 2005,16:05) |
| Evolution explains how species arise through mutation and selection. ID explains how things in general came to be. Different questions. |
Hmm, you’ll have to explain that to me in more detail Tom, but if I think you’re saying what I think you’re saying, I’m not sure I agree.
If we postulate that an Intelligent Designer created the universe, and all that followed was part of the plan, then we come across a few wee problems.
The universe, and all that happens within it, seems to be chaotic. Biological evolution depends upon random mutation.
And randomness is part of all other physical processes.
We can apply linear mathematics in a limited, boundary constrained situation, but only within a bounded model.
Even with something as seemingly linear as a the movement of balls across a snooker table (pool table), after about the 5th bounce off the cushion, the momentum of any ball is completely chaotic.
So, it seems that an “initial design” would not last very long.
That means we need an Intelligent Designer who continually sticks his finger in, guides, controls, interferes with his creation.
Given that the current ID debate is basically a Christian one, that would contradict the Christian argument of “Free Will”.
And even in non-Christian arguments, it implies pre-determination, which both mathematics and quantum mechanics deny.
Or have I misunderstood your point?
I still find the “primordial ooze we came from a single celled doo-hickey” stuff difficult to comprehend. Even Darwin noted in his observations that much was unexplainable without an intelligent creator.
I’m not dissin’ evolution. I think it happened and is still happening. I just believe that something had to get the ball rolling other than some “Great Cosmic Accident”.
I dunno…
D
Randomness and some (most? ) forms of ID are compatible. ID includes a whole lot of theories, some of which (young earth creationism, e.g.) hold that the world was created a short time ago pretty much as it is today, some of which (old earth creationism, e.g.) hold that the universe was created 15 billion years ago, some of which hold that God merely started things going (the Deist, watchmaker style arguments), some of which require a constant intervention of the sort you suggest. ID is according to its proponents the “broad umbrella” under which Christians and others who have very different views of God’s role can collect to fight the evils of science (really the evils of liberalism) , but strangely enough it is not itself in all of its forms inherently hostile to science. Weird world filled with weird people.
How’s that?
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| I still find the “primordial ooze we came from a single celled doo-hickey” stuff difficult to comprehend. Even Darwin noted in his observations that much was unexplainable without an intelligent creator. |
IN his private letters he made fun of the idea of God.
Possibly Tim, but from what we see of the world around us, it’s not possible to design an initial set-up that will then continue, and develop, as per the plan.
Can you think of any examples in the real world?
Even something as simple as pendulum will eventually move differently than predicted.
So, that means we need a Designer who constantly needs to nudge things the way he wants things to go.
Perhaps it’s arguable that Noah and flood, Moses and the 10 commandments, Jesus, etc., were all “nudges” by god, but they seem very insufficient given the complexity of the universe.
And if he is controlling things more than we see, I repeat, what happened to Free Will?
Well, I dunno either. But it’s fun yakking about it.
Ok Tom, the initial design theories which stipulate that it’s all following a grand plan we can ignore, because they are in conflict with science.
Theories that require a controlling supervisor need to be testable to be harmonious with science.
So, what tests have been proposed?
No test, and no test are possible, since science deals only with the natural world, and a creator is by definition supernatural. It’s a category mistake to ask for empirical confirmation of a thing that is not empirical.
But I don’t see why it would not be possible for an all powerful, all knowing being, or even a very powerful very knowing being, to be able to set up a complex system that was rule governed, so that the state of the system in 15 billion years would be known simply by observing the initial state and then following through the transformations the rules produce. Just because we don’t fully understand all of the factors that affect a pendulum swinging does not mean that it is not playing according to the rules.
I should add: the ID arguments are mostly rationalist, not empirical - they are mostly of the form “there is order, order cannot come into being without an intelligent agent, so there must be an intelligent agent outside the order (i.e., supernatural) who is responsible for the order.”
Now, there does seem to be order in the universe, but not on my desk.
The second premise is the problem - can order exist and be explained in purely naturalistic terms? You bet. But the decision between a created universe and one that just happened is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
| Quote (TomS @ Dec. 02 2005,16:51) |
| No test, and no test are possible, since science deals only with the natural world, and a creator is by definition supernatural. It’s a category mistake to ask for empirical confirmation of a thing that is not empirical. But I don’t see why it would not be possible for an all powerful, all knowing being, or even a very powerful very knowing being, to be able to set up a complex system that was rule governed, so that the state of the system in 15 billion years would be known simply by observing the initial state and then following through the transformations the rules produce. Just because we don’t fully understand all of the factors that affect a pendulum swinging does not mean that it is not playing according to the rules. |
Hmmm, no.
Knowing the initial state of system, does not enable one to completely predict a future state of the system.
The “rules” are not really rules, but guidelines, or rather, the most probable outcome.
In many simple systems, the probability is near 100%, but only “near”, not, never ever, 100%.
And that is not due to our fallibility as humans, nor the imperfections in our measuring equipment, but rather, it’s the way the universe appears to be. (And whether god created the universe, or it just happened that way, it seems that that is the way it is).
Anyway, I’m not claiming that science is right and ID is wrong, but I am claiming that science and ID are incompatible.
But by all means, teach ID in schools, and all the possible variants of it, but, keep it out of science class.
Ah, ok. (responding to your second post).
Religion, or philosophy, or who knows what, may indeed provide us with the TRUTH; buggered if know!
But, ID theory and science are completely incompatible, (in my opinion anyway. There again, I once thought that blackcurrent jam with fried eggs would taste nice 
).
Yes, it belongs in philosophy and religion classes, not in science class, b/c it is not science.
But…what do you mean when you say that the universe appears not to be law-like? is it that thing about somebody’s cat?
mmmmblack currant jam…mmm…
P.S. oh yeah, “order”.
No such thing.
The best we ever see is a majority decision.
Hold an atom in your fingers, then let go of it. It might go any direction, with any velocity. It can’t be predicted, it obeys no rules.
In a gravitational field, then there’s a very slight bias that it might go in a general “downwards” direction, but only slight, don’t bet your life on it.
When you have a billion atoms tied together, then all those slight tendencies add up, and it becomes highly probable that the whole mass will go downwards (it’s a vector summation). But it’s still all probabilities; no rules, no laws, just summed probabilities.
So for “order”, substitute “highly probable”.
And what sort of omnipotent and omniscient god relies on “highly probable”?