And not just man. All of life has been continually advancing, slowly, but very undirected. Through a process called "Natural Selection", individual traits are randomly created. Very randomly. If the trait helps, that organism lives on. If it doesn't, the organism dies, along with the trait. Hence, only the good traits are preserved.
This was the greatness of Darwin's theory. It makes sense 100% of the time. Now the arguments the "Intelligent Design" people make are based on implications derived from Darwin's theory. (Asexual organisms, complexity, etc).
When Darwin presented his theories, the Catholic Church strongly shot him down. It said "there was no way that man came from monkeys" etc. etc. Then people said "We have to separate church and state". And so the "creationism" argument is now invalid in all books, teachings, etc (since education is a part of the state).
Intelligent Design is when people say "There is no way evolution can slowly create man"..."It must be someone intelligent that created man".
They're basically pulling the whole Creationism brouhaha by saying man is too complex to be created through evolutionary means. Remember, there is no way to test "Intelligent Design", therefore it is not a scientific theory.
This cartoon jokes at it, but this is one of the many evidences against Intelligent Design. Ask me for more.
6 comments:
" Remember, there is no way to test "Intelligent Design", therefore it is not a scientific theory."
Yes there is. ID is a basic aspect of science, I say it is very basic because using systematic thought and/or mathematics applied to empirical evidence it is applied in anything from forensic science, archaeology and SETI to biotech copyrights.
The issue becomes philosophical and politicized because Darwinists want to make some sort of special exception in the case of historical biology in order to protect the power and orthodoxy that they have built based on a history of frauds and scientism. It's a false distinction and a propagandistic game of definitions to say that science can touch on ID in many fields yet when it comes to historical biology it must be excluded.
Some examples of the science of ID:
In forensic science there can be evidence of a naturalistic accident as opposed to an intentional act of the mind. I.e., the person fell, they were not pushed. In archaeology there can be evidence of a naturalistic happenstance in rock formation, vs. purposeful formation by a mind. In that case we know it when we see it most of the time, yet when working with artifacts that are more alien in nature a closer study of information would be necessary to detect what is a formation of Nature vs. an artifact design. I.e., the rock is worn by water, it is not engraved. In SETI formation of Nature is evidence of solar pulsars, etc. I.e., the radio signal is not based on any sort of code or encryption written by a mind, it is of natural process.
In contrast, Darwinist will not allow their numerous hypotheses to be falsified/tested in the same sense. Instead, in the face of evidence for design they just make another hypothesis because their sort of anti-design dogma is unlike all those other instances.
"This cartoon jokes at it, but this is one of the many evidences against Intelligent Design."
That bit of text you just wrote is nothing more than an artifact of the biochemical state of your brain in that moment. It is not as if the activity of an intelligent agent can be detected in any artifact. After all, men have nipples, so that proves it.
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2005/02/narratives-and-senses-of-humors.html
mynym, I'm not sure what kind of an ID advocator you are, so I find it difficult to respond, but let me pose another argument: Ockham's Razor. I'll assume that you're familiar with it.
In this situation, I can see two "events" that this rule can be applied to.
1) 4.7 billion years of trial and error have caused an evolution of life to its present form
or
2) an Intelligent Creator has put us all here. And if this is the case... where did the Intelligent Creator come from?
In my opinion, #1 is clearly much simpler of an answer, resulting in a high probability of it being correct.
I don't like to think about these ideas with such complexity. Going back to the very roots, and thinking in terms of simplicity is more my route.
I don't understand how ID supporters can say that placing ID into the science curriculum can possibly offer a different side into the view of how man came into existence. I don't hate religion, but I do dislike the fact that ID is supposed to be a nonreligious alternate view but at the same time, it represents everything that Christianity is.
I'm interested in hearing how a teacher will lecture on ID. For instance, would they simply say "ID states that some sort of intelligent being created the earth at one point in time," and then leave it at that? How would discussion follow? And the beauty of scientific theory is that it is supposed to be tested, and then following the results of the test, we should be able to confirm the theory or to null it. Debate follows scientific theory. But how does one go about testing and debating ID? Furthermore, if ID is based on some "higher being" or God (as he is called in Christian beliefs) how does one debate against God?
Separation of church and state is absolutely needed in education. If one decides that ID is to be taught in the science classroom as a means of showing "alternative views", one must be able to show all alternate views. Another instance: Suppose I don't think that we were created, but simply born from the earth. How will one represent my views in ID? It simply cannot be done.
"In my opinion, #1 is clearly much simpler of an answer, resulting in a high probability of it being correct."
Actually, most philosophers apply the Razor the other way because 4.5 billion years and so on is very complicated, while Darwinists argue that science is complicated. I do not believe in trying to aply the Razor and so on. Is the Razor the simplest explanation or does it rely on a long justification?
"...an Intelligent Creator has put us all here. And if this is the case... where did the Intelligent Creator come from?"
Infinite Intelligence, it is the finite that can be traced as ripples of cause and effect. You know what intelligence is like by experience. You could look at your brain events in a scanner and think about your own thoughts. Yet for all the complexity of cause and effect in your neural nets you are thinking some thoughts and can animate your own neural nets at a word. What is a word, only a bit of information. And what is that, exactly?
Philosophy and science both deal in tracing things back to axiomatic causes or ideas, like Aristotle's arguments leading to his finding an unmoved Mover.
The logician who decries circlular logic just for the sake of intellectual pride will have you denying that circles do, indeed, exist. There can be self-evident truths that are evident in the Self. Before trying to engage in what seems like an endless processing of the ratios of the rational you need to begin with a rationale for rationality. And when you come to your answer, was it at the beginning or at the end? Perhaps you are only refining and extending knowledge that you already had. If you do not have it, you do not have it. Jesus compares his Word to a mustard seed that grows and so on. It is not as if everyone will have the same knowledge/wit planted in them to bear a witness to. There are some that simply will not. So let the dead in the head bury their dead.
"I'm interested in hearing how a teacher will lecture on ID."
They'd probably communicate some of the same things that I did in my first post about science and ID. It is also useful to note that naturalism is limited. And ID is limited as far as science goes too, its claims are rather limited. It's not about creation either. Something can be an artifact of design using materials that were already there.
My last post is more philosophic.
If your main problem is that Christians find confirmation of some elements of their beliefs in ID then there is little to say. ID does not really get you to Christianity, obviously religion, theology, philosophy, history, etc., have a role there.
UFOlogists could find some confirmation of their beliefs in ID too. Yet is that an argument against the science?
Post a Comment