(Un)Intelligent Design

[TheBlueRaja]

There is a movement in the US which is gaining support amoungst the uneducated, including G W Bush, challenging Darwins theory of evolution and suggesting that life of Earth has developed not by evolution, but instead implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents.

As an example they specify an organism which, they say, could not have developed naturally due to evolution but instead must have been "created" as they put it as the parts which make it up are too complex and could not have been formed merely by chance, this they call Irreducable complexity..

An example of this is the bacterium flagellum which propells itself using what can only be described as a bacterial motor and is composed as so:-



Another concept they promote is specified complexity, this is effectively asking what the odds of us actually being here right now? What are the odds of us having developed from primordial pools right upto the compley human beings we are today - their astronomical and by implication next to impossible.

Trouble is this is no more than a cancer on Science and an overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience or junk science.

Its like saying have faith people, we dont understand this so it must have been created by Supernatural causes. They take care not to mention God too much, which is probably because Creationism is banned in schools in America, so they are tying to sneak in the back door.

In case your womdering - their claims can be easily countered - do a search on google if your interested.

[danielf]

ID does pose some interesting challenges to evolution theory (though most of them are easily countered). The main problem, as you put it, is that it is pseudoscience at best.

A serious scientific theory needs to be falsifiable. That is, it needs to make non-trivial predictions which specify what observations will disprove the theory. The need for theories to be falsifiable is an integral part of the process of scientific progress, as it is required to choose between competing theories. Allowing theories that are not falsifiable will stop the progress of science, as there will never be a need to revise a theory that cannot be disproven.

ID/creationism is not falsifiable, and therefore pseudoscience at best.

Edit: for those who are interested, the ID argument is summed up here:

www.answersingenesis.org

The (mainstream) scientific opposition can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

(how's that for being fair and showing both sides of the argument? )

[Russ]

Been done to death.

Originally Posted by danielf

ID does pose some interesting challenges to evolution theory (though most of them are easily countered). The main problem, as you put it, is that it is pseudoscience at best.

A serious scientific theory needs to be falsifiable. That is, it needs to make non-trivial predictions which specify what observations will disprove the theory. The need for theories to be falsifiable is an integral part of the process of scientific progress, as it is required to choose between competing theories. Allowing theories that are not falsifiable will stop the progress of science, as there will never be a need to revise a theory that cannot be disproven.

ID/creationism is not falsifiable, and therefore pseudoscience at best.

Edit: for those who are interested, the ID argument is summed up here:

www.answersingenesis.com

The (mainstream) scientific opposition can be founf here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Thought you were not going to be entering in any more threads of this ilk
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...64&postcount=7
Surely you do not want you own head to roll

[danielf]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

Thought you were not going to be entering in any more threads of this ilk
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...64&postcount=7
Surely you do not want you own head to roll

Ah, I was just looking for that post... What part of 'I will say it again' was it you did not understand?

Originally Posted by danielf

Ah, I was just looking for that post... What part of 'I will say it again' was it you did not understand?

Pah ok you got me n1

there is a counter 'argument' to ID, based on evidence of poor design, such as the redundant human appendix, not only does it have no function, but it can cause appendicitis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

The recent Horizon program on ID persuaded me that the problem isn't whether any of these theories are 'correct' in their interpretation of our existence, but rather that some groups want to only consider one possibility, to the exclusion of any others. To me, especially in an educational context, that amounts to brainwashing. People should consider all the possibilities, then make up their own mind which best fits their own beliefs - in my opinion, anyway

[danielf]

Originally Posted by homealone

there is a counter 'argument' to ID, based on evidence of poor design, such as the redundant human appendix, not only does it have no function, but it can cause appendicitis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

The recent Horizon program on ID persuaded me that the problem isn't whether any of these theories are 'correct' in their interpretation of our existence, but rather that some groups want to only consider one possibility, to the exclusion of any others. To me, especially in an educational context, that amounts to brainwashing. People should consider all the possibilities, then make up their own mind which best fits their own beliefs - in my opinion, anyway

I fully agree with that. Just to clarify, people can believe whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned, and I have no beef with ID on that level. When it gets put forward as science, and people suggest it should be taught as a valid scientific alternative to evolution is where I get angry. I am all for being critical of science. That is the way it progresses. ID however, does not play by the rules laid down for what constitutes science, and therefore hinders its progress. So, by all means, believe what you want, but keep science and religion separate.

[idi banashapan]

the problem is, evolution and ID are based purely on theories. there is no way we as a race can conclusively say either is 'the way it is'. no-one was there to watch either event unfold and record it's progress, so we truely cannot say the either is 'correct'. in that respect, why should we say that evolution should be taught as a science?

As said, a lot of ID's theories can be countered by the Evolutionary thoery, but then that works the other way too then.

And true, some people are so blinkered that they will ONLY consider one way of thinking, but this also applies to religion, which is also based on a book of 'stories' (all due respect intended - i am not rubbishing any religion or belief anyone may have), for want of a better word, from a time when science was not a mastered art and a lot of things that could be explained these days were put down to 'miracles' and 'witchcraft'.

Personally, I also feel people can believe what they like as long as they don't FORCE their opinions on others. by all means, make others aware of their thoughts, etc.... I think I'm more inclined to go for the evolutionary trail, but as I said, there is no way of truely knowing for sure at our current stage of scientific knowledge.

A very interesting arguement no matter what angle you cut the cake from. Good post.

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by Bender

the problem is, evolution and ID are based purely on theories. there is no way we as a race can conclusively say either is 'the way it is'. no-one was there to watch either event unfold and record it's progress, so we truely cannot say the either is 'correct'. in that respect, why should we say that evolution should be taught as a science?

As said, a lot of ID's theories can be countered by the Evolutionary theory, but then that works the other way too then.

And true, some people are so blinkered that they will ONLY consider one way of thinking, but this also applies to religion, which is also based on a book of 'stories' (all due respect intended - i am not rubbishing any religion or belief anyone may have), for want of a better word, from a time when science was not a mastered art and a lot of things that could be explained these days were put down to 'miracles' and 'witchcraft'.

Personally, I also feel people can believe what they like as long as they don't FORCE their opinions on others. by all means, make others aware of their thoughts, etc.... I think I'm more inclined to go for the evolutionary trail, but as I said, there is no way of truely knowing for sure at our current stage of scientific knowledge.

A very interesting arguement no matter what angle you cut the cake from. Good post.

ID is hypothesis - not theory.
Evolution is a theory and has turned out to be a very good one, backed up by many years of observations to prove that theory - and it just keeps getting better.

In science one rarely uses "fact" in the true sense and everything is theory until something better comes along one seeks to be proved wrong. Obviously, well proven theories become adopted in a literal sense as "fact" because they have been proved so thoroughly and for so long but science naturally likes to be proved wrong because that is precisely how it advances.
The ID hypothesis has already been proved wrong many many times. If a few stubborn people still think ID is valid because they merely hold a belief in it then they have dropped out of the scientific argument.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Flubflow

If a few stubborn people still think ID is valid because they merely hold a belief in it then they have dropped out of the scientific argument.

So is it now, by process of definition, a religion? That is to say, there is nothing concrete to prove it happened, yet there is a group of people holding the belief that it is true.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Bender

So is it now, by process of definition, a religion? That is to say, there is nothing concrete to prove it happened, yet there is a group of people holding the belief that it is true.

I'd like to respond to that, but I'm not sure I understand your point. Would you like to elaborate?

When did science become a belief? It's a logical process of proving theory by using mathematics, careful observation and experimentation.It is not a religious faith.ID does not use any scientific methods to prove anything.It is based purely on belief.So neither should appear in the same lesson together.Goodness knows science is hard enough to teach without bringing in religion.Two potential turn offs in the same lesson?The kids will never sit still for that.

"Religion/science/maths is soooo boring Miss.Why do we have to do it.I'm never going to be using it when I leave school."

[Kliro]

Originally Posted by Bender

the problem is, evolution and ID are based purely on theories. there is no way we as a race can conclusively say either is 'the way it is'. no-one was there to watch either event unfold and record it's progress, so we truely cannot say the either is 'correct'. in that respect, why should we say that evolution should be taught as a science?

As said, a lot of ID's theories can be countered by the Evolutionary thoery, but then that works the other way too then.

And true, some people are so blinkered that they will ONLY consider one way of thinking, but this also applies to religion, which is also based on a book of 'stories' (all due respect intended - i am not rubbishing any religion or belief anyone may have), for want of a better word, from a time when science was not a mastered art and a lot of things that could be explained these days were put down to 'miracles' and 'witchcraft'.

Personally, I also feel people can believe what they like as long as they don't FORCE their opinions on others. by all means, make others aware of their thoughts, etc.... I think I'm more inclined to go for the evolutionary trail, but as I said, there is no way of truely knowing for sure at our current stage of scientific knowledge.

A very interesting arguement no matter what angle you cut the cake from. Good post.

Evolution has been shown to be at work in the world today - isolated speciation can pretty much show us this - the desired characteristic prevails.

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by Bender

So is it now, by process of definition, a religion? That is to say, there is nothing concrete to prove it happened, yet there is a group of people holding the belief that it is true.

I don't know. I'm only speaking in terms of science. What anyone does after they have lost a scientific argument is entirely up to them.
It could well be that a number of ignorant people might continue to adopt a broken hypothesis as a religion or as part of their existing religion.