Science Losing the Battle to ID

[MissileMan]

The pivotal question in the debate between ID and atheistic evolution is: Is it science? Atheistic evolutionists will answer with a resounding “No!” While ID proponents respond, “Of course it is.” Thus it behooves us to investigate the definition of “science.”

The American Heritage dictionary defines science as:
sci•ence (s ns)
n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.


The NAS states that "cience is a particular way of knowing about the world … [whose] explanations are limited to those based on observations that can be substantiated by other scientists" and is a "quest for understanding" to find "better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena". But it goes on to state that "the job of science is to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena."
(Science and Creationism A view from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edition, National Academy Press, 1999)

ID proponents are puzzled by the arbitrary inclusion of the phrase "natural explanations." Why must this be a part of the definition? In fact, it is only in recent decades that it was deemed necessary. Throughout the history of science, scientists were free to arrive at whatever conclusions the data indicated. But now, we must arbitrarily outlaw one possible explanation BEFORE any data are even collected.

AEs urge the acceptance of the idea that ID is not observable or falsifiable. However this is not true. The data for both ID and Evolution are the same. It is merely the conclusions which differ. Therefore, ID and Evolution are equally observable. ID does have the ability to be falsified, whenever “future investigations… uncover natural laws which better explain the observed data.”

There are at least three areas in which ID can offer an explanation, where AEs are stymied: “the information contained in the genetic code”, “the origin of the first cell and replicating DNA system,” and “irreducibly complex structures.” http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/nasreview.htm

Scientists like Melvin Morse have found themselves the objects of scorn in the scientific community, even though they are not themselves believers in “God.” Morse investigated the nature of the near-death experience, taking care to include every physical or psychological explanation for it. His extensive work was ridiculed, not for its methodology, but for its conclusions. Morse states, “I admit that the older I get, the more important the spiritual dimension of this is to me. But I’m deliberately holding back from dealing with it. Because I know that, once I cross that line, I am no longer a scientist.” So Morse despairs of ever finding an explanation for near-death experiences. (“Spirited Away,” Randall Sullivan, published in Rolling Stone and reprinted in Reader’s Digest, Feb 2006, p.165) But why is he no longer a scientist?

Even ardent evolutionists like Richard Lewontin admit that supernatural explanations seem to be the most logical in some areas. But he refuses to submit to this, not because of investigation, data, or observation, but solely because of his personal philosophy.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/admission.asp

It is obvious that the inclusion of the phrase “natural explanations” is a stumbling block to true science, stymieing investigation, and stifling debate, and that the reason for this inclusion is subjective and arbitrary, not “scientific.”

Science is about things that can be measured and observed...always has been, always will be (well, except in Kansas, where they redefined science). Religion was invented specifically to fill the holes in man's knowledge. As that knowledge has increased, religion's role has moved from explaining the mundane to providing a moral compass and a hope for an after-life. IMO, until the divine can be measured and observed, it should remain separated from science, especially in the classroom. Otherwise you wind up with the following type scenarios in school:

Teacher: Class, today we are going to study the flammability of different substances. Touch a burning match to a piece of paper, then touch it to a piece of glass. What have we learned today?

a. Paper is flammable and glass isn't
or
b. Paper and glass are both flammable, but there was an angel keeping the glass from burning.

 

[Nienna]

Science is about things that can be measured and observed...always has been, always will be (well, except in Kansas, where they redefined science). Religion was invented specifically to fill the holes in man's knowledge. As that knowledge has increased, religion's role has moved from explaining the mundane to providing a moral compass and a hope for an after-life. IMO, until the divine can be measured and observed, it should remain separated from science, especially in the classroom. Otherwise you wind up with the following type scenarios in school:

Teacher: Class, today we are going to study the flammability of different substances. Touch a burning match to a piece of paper, then touch it to a piece of glass. What have we learned today?

a. Paper is flammable and glass isn't
or
b. Paper and glass are both flammable, but there was an angel keeping the glass from burning.

Rather extreme example.

Subjects overlap. Try to teach science without math, or literature without language.

As to science ALWAYS being about things that can be measured, that is false. Check out quantum physics.

Anyway, the whole point of the post is that ID is NOT religion.

 

[MissileMan]

Rather extreme example.

Subjects overlap. Try to teach science without math, or literature without language.

What does that have to do with attributing divine influence to a scientific observation?

As to science ALWAYS being about things that can be measured, that is false. Check out quantum physics.

Yeah, I should have said measured OR observed, not AND. That doesn't leave a gap that you can cram religion into though!

ID, at least the Creationism version of ID, is religious.

 

[alien21010]

The pivotal question in the debate between ID and atheistic evolution is: Is it science? Atheistic evolutionists will answer with a resounding “No!” While ID proponents respond, “Of course it is.” Thus it behooves us to investigate the definition of “science.”

The American Heritage dictionary defines science as:
sci•ence (s ns)
n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.


The NAS states that "cience is a particular way of knowing about the world … [whose] explanations are limited to those based on observations that can be substantiated by other scientists" and is a "quest for understanding" to find "better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena". But it goes on to state that "the job of science is to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena."
(Science and Creationism A view from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edition, National Academy Press, 1999)

ID proponents are puzzled by the arbitrary inclusion of the phrase "natural explanations." Why must this be a part of the definition? In fact, it is only in recent decades that it was deemed necessary. Throughout the history of science, scientists were free to arrive at whatever conclusions the data indicated. But now, we must arbitrarily outlaw one possible explanation BEFORE any data are even collected.

AEs urge the acceptance of the idea that ID is not observable or falsifiable. However this is not true. The data for both ID and Evolution are the same. It is merely the conclusions which differ. Therefore, ID and Evolution are equally observable. ID does have the ability to be falsified, whenever “future investigations… uncover natural laws which better explain the observed data.”

I stopped reading here. Any website, or author that claims that ID is falsifiable is frankly put a moron. How can you disprove the existence of god? How can you?

Irreducible complexity sounds great on paper, but once you understand that it is not in fact a reality of the natural world, then you start to realize the catch 22 of ID.

Evolution is also not atheistic. EVOLUTION DOES NOT STATE ANYTHING ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF LIFE ON EARTH.

 

[alien21010]

Rather extreme example.

Subjects overlap. Try to teach science without math, or literature without language.

As to science ALWAYS being about things that can be measured, that is false. Check out quantum physics.

Anyway, the whole point of the post is that ID is NOT religion.

Whoever said science was about items that can be measured or quantified? Science is the body of observations about the natural world, and plausible explanations for what we see around us. Granted you may not be able to physically touch or measure the immensity of a black hole, but that does not mean they do not exist.

What evidence is there for ID that is outside of the Bible? Irreducible complexity is a joke. The extra information found in the genome is actually quite well accounted for in Evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is a completely separate topic, and we won't discuss that here.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Actually, this is about all that some proponents of ID want to do.

It doesn't matter because ID isn't science so it doesn't belong in science classes. If ID should be taught in science class, then why not Aristotle and Plato too?

 

[Avatar4321]

Maybe they should teach "intelligent design" along with science in the schools. Every once in a while the teacher could interrupt the science and state, "Of course many people around the world believe a great variety of gods had a hand in creation". Nothing more is needed. Then get back to science. If the teacher says it at least once a week that should be enough.

Thats too logical to work. You cant mention that some people believe the creation of the world was done by a supreme being that would be indoctrination. we can only teach evolution thats it

 

[acludem]

I know you righties are thrilled to see me back - it's been an extremely busy several months. Now on to the debate at hand...

Darwin was silent on the starting point of life, he only presented his empirical evidence that species had changed or evolved over time to adapt to their environment. Darwin, in fact, almost didn't publish this work because he didn't want to upset his wife - a devout Christian.

As for ID, it is simply Creationism in disguise. Intelligent Design is another way of saying God created the heaven and the earth.... Science can't be based upon faith. However, evolution and an original creator are not mutually exclusive per se. But intelligent design is not science, and thus should not be taught as such.

acludem

 

[Nienna]

What does that have to do with attributing divine influence to a scientific observation?

Many IDers would take issue with the word "divine."
Once again, here is where subjects overlap. ID proponents want the freedom to explore explanations without the arbitrary exclusion of a certain explanation.

Yeah, I should have said measured OR observed, not AND. That doesn't leave a gap that you can cram religion into though!

ID, at least the Creationism version of ID, is religious.

Creationism is the melding of religion and science. However, ID is a very different thing. Many ID proponents are agnostic; hence the phrase "Intelligent Design," as opposed to "Divine Design."

 

[Nienna]

I stopped reading here. Any website, or author that claims that ID is falsifiable is frankly put a moron. How can you disprove the existence of god? How can you?

If a materialistic explanation better fits the data, then this explanation is accepted over the supernatural. Simply show a logical materialistic explanation, and you have disproved the Divine explanation.

Irreducible complexity sounds great on paper, but once you understand that it is not in fact a reality of the natural world, then you start to realize the catch 22 of ID.

not sure what you mean by irreducible complexity not being real. What makes you say this?

Evolution is also not atheistic. EVOLUTION DOES NOT STATE ANYTHING ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF LIFE ON EARTH.

Many evolutionists are ardent atheists. See above quote by Lewontin. And it is simply false to state that biologists are NEVER interested in the origin of life. What's more, the origin of life is not the only issue that cannot be explained by materialistic theories.

 

[Nienna]

Whoever said science was about items that can be measured or quantified?

MissileMan

Science is the body of observations about the natural world, and plausible explanations for what we see around us. Granted you may not be able to physically touch or measure the immensity of a black hole, but that does not mean they do not exist.

Okay.

What evidence is there for ID that is outside of the Bible?

Once again, many IDers are agnostic, and certainly do not rely on the Bible for information.

Irreducible complexity is a joke. The extra information found in the genome is actually quite well accounted for in Evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is a completely separate topic, and we won't discuss that here.

Many scientists disagree with you. Students should be allowed to study the controversy.

 

[liberalogic]

Many IDers would take issue with the word "divine."
Once again, here is where subjects overlap. ID proponents want the freedom to explore explanations without the arbitrary exclusion of a certain explanation.




Creationism is the melding of religion and science. However, ID is a very different thing. Many ID proponents are agnostic; hence the phrase "Intelligent Design," as opposed to "Divine Design."

The problem with ID is that it's basically telling us to give up. If, in the science classroom, we concede to the idea of an Intelligent Designer, we leave many questions unanswered that could possibly be answered in the future. We chalk it up to the work of this designer. If this theory begins to grow, it will only impede upon discoveries that we can make in the future. Look back to Galileo, who was condemned by Pope Paul V for using Copernicus' theory in his works. This happened because the church refused to believe that the Earth revolved around the sun. Why? Because we are God's creation and we should be the center of the universe. My point is that religion (or the thought of a higher power in ID) pushes us away from discoveries that we can possibly make because we refuse to put anything above this Designer.

Look, I've said over and over again that ID is a philosophy. If you want to throw it into that type of class (a class that would teach it as a belief, rather than a fact or anything close to it), I have no objection whatsoever. But as much as you attempt to call it a science, it really isn't. We have NO CLUE whether there is a God, a designer, or any other supernatural being. The fact is that we can't prove it and we will never be able to prove it. While evolution and other scientific theories may have their flaws, we have a much better chance of factualizing this data because we don't have to wait for an intelligent designer to float down from the heavens and assert our claims.

Teach it at home or in a philosophy class...please keep it out of science.

 

[Nienna]

The problem with ID is that it's basically telling us to give up. If, in the science classroom, we concede to the idea of an Intelligent Designer, we leave many questions unanswered that could possibly be answered in the future.

How many theories and conclusions in science have been refuted over the years? MANY. If, in the future, a plausible materialistic explanation comes up... fine! Why give up?

We chalk it up to the work of this designer. If this theory begins to grow, it will only impede upon discoveries that we can make in the future. Look back to Galileo, who was condemned by Pope Paul V for using Copernicus' theory in his works. This happened because the church refused to believe that the Earth revolved around the sun. Why? Because we are God's creation and we should be the center of the universe. My point is that religion (or the thought of a higher power in ID) pushes us away from discoveries that we can possibly make because we refuse to put anything above this Designer.

Galilei was actually a creationist. He was not condemned by the pope for his scientific ideas, but rather for his failure to submit to a papal decree. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the sun revolves around the earth.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/galileo.asp
And, many materialistic scientists will agree that the earth IS probably near the center of the universe. God tells us to test, to use our minds. IF you choose to involve Him. Many ID proponents do not.

Look, I've said over and over again that ID is a philosophy. If you want to throw it into that type of class (a class that would teach it as a belief, rather than a fact or anything close to it), I have no objection whatsoever. But as much as you attempt to call it a science, it really isn't. We have NO CLUE whether there is a God, a designer, or any other supernatural being. The fact is that we can't prove it and we will never be able to prove it. While evolution and other scientific theories may have their flaws, we have a much better chance of factualizing this data because we don't have to wait for an intelligent designer to float down from the heavens and assert our claims.
Teach it at home or in a philosophy class...please keep it out of science.

IDers do not want to teach about God. They simply want it taught that some biological phenomena cannot be explained by present material knowledge, that it appears that they have an intelligent cause. No philosophizing about Who the cause might be, just statement that certain features bear the mark of intelligent design.

 

[MissileMan]

Many IDers would take issue with the word "divine."
Once again, here is where subjects overlap. ID proponents want the freedom to explore explanations without the arbitrary exclusion of a certain explanation.




Creationism is the melding of religion and science. However, ID is a very different thing. Many ID proponents are agnostic; hence the phrase "Intelligent Design," as opposed to "Divine Design."

ID the "concept" is the stuff of science fiction, ala "2001, A Space Odyssey".

ID the "science" is a push by some Christians, especially those who believe every single word of the Bible as fact, to get their Christian version of the origins of life included in public schools. If you'd like, I can post the published agenda of this religious movement again. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with Christian indoctrination.

 

[acludem]

If you don't believe ID is about pushing Christianity just take a look at the people who are pushing it - Evangelical Christians.

acludem

 

[Nienna]

Do Evangelical Christians support ID? OF COURSE! No secret conspiracy there. Why WOULDN'T they?

However, simply because ECs support it doesn't automatically mean that it has no merit. There are many agnostics who support it, too.

If you want to see conspiracy and "indoctrination," look at the ones who are trying to SUPRESS information. Case in point: the Kansas text book issue. The ELECTED school board voted to place stickers on the books that stated nothing more than "Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It should be studied critically." No mention of ID, God, religion of ANY kind. Just that the cons as well as the pros of the theory of evolution should be addressed. It didn't even mandate that an alternative to evolution should be taught.

The response? Outrage! Cries of "Indoctrination!" Ultimately, an UNELECTED judge ordered the stickers to be removed. Evidently, evolution is so sacred that not even a hint that it MIGHT have flaws can be tolerated.

 

[Avatar4321]

Do Evangelical Christians support ID? OF COURSE! No secret conspiracy there. Why WOULDN'T they?

However, simply because ECs support it doesn't automatically mean that it has no merit. There are many agnostics who support it, too.

If you want to see conspiracy and "indoctrination," look at the ones who are trying to SUPRESS information. Case in point: the Kansas text book issue. The ELECTED school board voted to place stickers on the books that stated nothing more than "Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It should be studied critically." No mention of ID, God, religion of ANY kind. Just that the cons as well as the pros of the theory of evolution should be addressed. It didn't even mandate that an alternative to evolution should be taught.

The response? Outrage! Cries of "Indoctrination!" Ultimately, an UNELECTED judge ordered the stickers to be removed. Evidently, evolution is so sacred that not even a hint that it MIGHT have flaws can be tolerated.

Yet there is no effort of Christianity being targeted by the left. No none whatsoever. Evolution just purely scientific. Therefore cannot be looked critically. And the idea that there might have been a Divine plan for the creation of the earth is utterly blasphemous. How dare people actually believe that! I mean ignore the fact that such a belief is completely consistent with evolution. I mean what is to say God didnt create through evolution?

But no its just totally sad that people would actually look at evolution critically and might actually believe that God could have created the world. You are just dumb if you think differently then the elite "scholars" of society.

 

[acludem]

No one on the left is "challenging" Christianity's right to exist. Many on the left (and on the right for that matter) do challenge the notion many Evangelicals have that they should be able to use public schools to proselytise to children. All ID is designed to do is open that door.

acludem

 

[SpidermanTuba]

hey dude link me up to that section of the constitution

Amendment the 1st.

hey wow check this a state run state funded university in the bastion of liberal berkeley teach religion at a public schooll....http://ls.berkeley.edu/ugis/religiousstudies/

Religion is taught not as ideology but as academic subject matter in universities. There is a difference between telling someone they must pray or go to hell and telling someone that many Christians believe prayer is neccessary for what they call "salvation"

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If you believe this, you suck at science.

You have no idea what science is. Science is limited only to natural explanations for natural phenomena. God is by definition supernatural. Therefore, to even mention God in science is retarded.

Find me a single peer reviewed journal article in which the question of God's existance is posed.