Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 23

At last! An improvement to the deceptive advertisement of the second paragraph

At least you have just shown some progress. The last two responses above suggest an improvement to the current deceptive advertisement of the second paragraph--the improvement being something like the following.

Opponents of ID, who include the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, argue that ID fails to meet the science standard for what is a "theory." Rrrrr Dddddd said, "Any legitimate theory would state the 'who, why, when, where, and how' that is required for falsifiability. ID is structured to express faith, not reason." Mmmmm Sssss said, "ID is pseudoscience in claiming to be science, but not following the scientific method for making and proving hypotheses." Rrrrr Ccccc said, "It is childish for ID to claim that nature fits together like a watch. Even most people are born with 'design flaws' that require medicine to fix. The animals that have become extinct had fatal design flaws that killed all of their species." <-----Falsehood, a number of species have been hunted to extinction by humans.How could one possibly forget this.

That is REALLY POOR LOGIC. Does that fact that cars (or anything else for that matter) break down and need repairs "prove" that they were not designed? Of course not. A supposed "design flaw" does not prove lack of design. --DannyMuse 04:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

may i suggest that the discussion here revolves around some theological assumptions? the assertion that God made things GOOD does not mean he made them PERFECT. the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibonevolence of the "Designer" are still up for debate -- see Open Theism. Ungtss 15:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

intelligent design as a concept versus the intelligent design movement

I'm thinking do we need to break this page out into the concept of intelligent design as starting with William Paley and the modern intelligent design movement with its wedge, etc. Dunc|☺ 10:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any point in it. AFAIK there isn't any study of intelligent design outside the ID movement, and it's altogether appropriate to mention Paley and other precedents in a post about the topic. — B.Bryant 15:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quit the original research

Why is it that everyone is trying to put into this article their view on what ID is and not what the folks at the Discovery Institute say? no original research. We seriously need to cut some of this (and if you think this is bad look at irreducible complexity Dunc|☺ 17:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

;) But Dunc! Original research is so tempting! And it is so much easier and so much more rewarding than actually documenting what the proponents said. :) Here are the findings of my original research. I have found that, if you actually document what the proponents said on the article pages, somebody comes along and overwrites it with original research. There are many and varied methods of effecting this overwrite with original research--VfD, Merge to A and B, Move to Wiktionary, ... ! And all of that overwrite with original research can be done in good faith. I can see that now! 8) I have even seen the overwrite of cited OED definitions with original research!! Think of it! 8(( So I propose the following. Wikipedia needs to have a protected repository somewhere of what the proponents actually said. ;) It could even be paraphrases to obey copyright law. So whom would we trust to be the guardian of the Wikipedia Repository of What the Proponents Actually Said? :)) I confess that this inquiry is original research. But, as far as I know have kept this original research confined to TalkPages and UserPages. 8))) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:19, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me sir.

intelligent design is not the discovery institute. intelligent design is a broad-based set of beliefs far beyond that organization. everything i put in there was cited or a reword from other parts of the article. the article as it is is EXTREMELY pov, and does not even fairly represent ID ideas. the mendel thing was not original research -- it was a cited quote, and it belongs in there, as it is used in Intelligent Design schoolbooks. the bit on other possible explanations was a reword of something already in the article. your reverts were unfair. the entire article is criticism of ID right now -- uncited personal research criticism i might add. it needs to be fairly represented for what it is. shall we work together on it? Ungtss 17:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, well we're on better terms now. :) Basically, the article was pants, because it was the result of cross-editing by different groups. What I've been trying to do is put it all together in a coherent way. This means that it should discuss the movement first, their arguments, then the opposition, then schooling, and possibly how other creationists view the ID movement and the ID concept. But it also means that I've cut some of the eye and the watch arguments, which I'll put in argument from design. I'm not in favour of specific biological points because they tend to clutter the page. I still think it needs work though. Dunc|☺ 18:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

good deal:). so the plan now is:

1) npov the text about the movement itself to be fact-based and cited.

2) provide a brief summary of ID bio arguments, with links to subpages.

3) remove institute-specific stuff to the institute subpage.

4) provide a concise, effective, and cited criticism section.

any other suggestions? Ungtss 19:08, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Getting the lead right

okay. I wrote the lead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=7423552

to deliberately include as many keywords as possible, these being:

evolution natural selection God, Christianity, argument from design science, pseudoscience, creationism, scientific community, scientific philosophy, naturalism, falsifiability, wedge, and a couple of others. Twas thus:

Intelligent design (ID) (ID) is a theory that life shows signs of being created by an "intelligent designer" rather than through the process of evolution by means of natural selection. The intelligent designer is usually taken to be God, via the argument from design, given the links of the intelligent design movement to Christianity, and is thus a form of creationism. The intelligent design movement themselves however tend not to use theological arguments of other creationists and instead try to get intelligent design theory accepted as science, and have it taught in schools.

The scientific community however overwhelmingly rejects ID, which it considers to be pseudoscience because it violates the principles of scientific philosophy of naturalism and falsifiability. They believe that intelligent design is a "wedge" to redefine scientific philosophy and in particular destroy evolutionary biology, after which creationism would become the prevailing view. The scientific community also considers many of ID's arguments to be deliberately deceitful.

The lead is difficult, it needs to convey the subtleties of the argument. The panspermia link is spurious, and the only intelligent designer suggested is God, and the links of the ID movement to the Christian right are not at all hard to identify. I know the ID movement try to distance themselves from theological arguments, and deny that they are creationists, but we all know what's going on really. Dunc|☺ 12:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i can definitely see your point -- but i think there's a pov problem here that is best avoided by dodging the issue of religious bias. most creationists HONESTLY, in their HEART OF HEARTS, believe that evolutionism is just a means of justifying atheism. they see that western culture (especially europe) rejected religion for the most part at the same time evolution was coming to the fore, and see a strong correlation between the two in people (most naturalistic evolutionists are atheist or at least agnostic). i'm not PERSONALLY saying i think it's true (i'm agnostic myself on the issue) ... but that's the pov of the intelligent design folks -- they HONESTLY think that evolution is just anti-religious proselytizing, and that's why it makes them so angry to hear it taught as Fact in school -- like, "you are teaching my kids that my religion is FALSE!?"

so that POV is out there -- and PARTICULARLY widespread among the general population in the US -- but there's no reference to "anti-religious bias" on the evolution page, because evolutionists believe it to be OBJECTIVELY TRUE -- and i think that's fair -- it presents the theory as it is ... without ad hominem attacks regarding bias from outside.

i think the same rule should apply here -- we should dodge the pov question of who is objective and who is not, and simply say what they're SAYING -- and let the READER determine whether what they're saying is credible or not, on its MERITS, and not on the basis of our assumptions about their bias.

because just as you say "we all know they're just trying to bring God back into science," they're saying, "we all know they're just trying to keep God out to science."

the pov problem is ... if you frame intelligent design as a religious (i.e. biased) movement and evolution as a scientific (i.e. objective) movement, you've taken the evolutionist POV -- which may be true -- and it can stay on the evolution page no problem -- but i think the ID page ESPECIALLY needs to stay NPOV as to which is science and which is religion -- because that's the heart of the issue.

I think we should let the reader decide.

and i think that's the REAL reason why ID has come to the fore: to provide a set of scientific and religiously neutral theories that provide ROOM for God in the classroom -- not to tell kids that there IS a God or that there ISN'T a God ... but to tell them there COULD be a God. Yes, the wedge shows they have a long-term agenda -- and there will always be extremists on both sides (in fact, before i changed it, the creationism page misrepresented the law in the united states, saying that the supreme court had "consistently held that creation was religion and inadmissible in schools," when the SC explicitly held that it was NOT necessarily religion and could be taught in school if it had a scientific basis -- i think it's fair to say whoever misrepresented the law in that way had a bias).

so when it comes down to it, i think we should just present their arguments, without digging into our beliefs about their bias -- and for the moment, the ID movement makes one very simple claim: "There is still room for a Designer in scientific education." -- and THAT is, i think what the ID page needs to represent.

Thank you for working with me, by the way -- i really appreciate your insight here -- what do you think? Ungtss 15:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. With regard to the lead, perhaps the order of some of the points could be switched round; I think we still need to mention God in the lead. I do think that IDists are being intellectually dishonest, and they do deny that they are creationists. More on the history of science needs to be elaborated on to give context. I also think we need more criticism from we have the AiG link but that's all. I'll see what I can do. Dunc|☺ 15:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

thanks, man -- i'd love that too -- a really meaty discussion of WHY evolutionists believe ID fails, on its MERITS, rather than its bias. Ungtss 15:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work.

This article needs some serious reworking if it's going to be a legitimate reflection on ID. Some examples:

The scientific community overwhelmingly rejects ID, which it considers to be pseudoscience because it violates the accepted principles of scientific philosophy of naturalism and falsifiability.

Putting the bad wording aside, very few philosopers of science consider naturalism or falsifiability to be accepted principles. It's almost impossible to falsifiy anything, and any argument over "naturalism" immediately runs into the difficulty of defining the word "natural". That doesn't mean that these lines of criticism are invalid, but these are complex and subtle issues that are not easily reduced to a mere sentence. To be brief, the biggest problem for ID is testability, in that it's advocates have not (and presumably cannot) say what observations would count for or against it; they can only come up with arguments for or against natural evolution, and then assume that ID's fate equals the opposite of evolutionary theory's fate. But a theory has to be tested with empirical evidence, not with another theory. Another big problem is a lack of a progressive research program, which some philosohpers have claimed is a defining characteristic of all scientific endevors. And finally, ID lacks coherence, in that its advocates have a hard time saying just what exactly ID is, without resorting to undefined terminology (such as "design" or "intelligence") that just begs the question of what it is we're talking about.

There should really be a separate section on this, but at the very least, the way it stands now is misleading and needs to be modified.

:Arguments for intelligent design can be broadly split into three categories:

* Asserting that the theories of naturalistic evolution and naturalistic abiogenesis are improbable or impossible;

* Asserting that irreducible complexity gives positive evidence of an intelligent designer;

* Asserting that the mainstream scientific community is being intellectually dishonest in presenting evolution as fact when it is questionable, and discounting a multitude of evidences for intelligent design.

This isn't three categories, this is one category. Number 2 (irreducible complexity) is simply a subset of number 1. The IC argument is an argument against the sufficiency of naturalistic evolution, no more, no less. And number 3 is just an ad hominem.

The mainstream scientific community typically criticizes intelligent design as follows:

* Asserting that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience because it violates the principles of scientific philosophy of naturalism and falsifiability.

* Asserting that intelligent design is a "wedge" to redefine scientific philosophy and in particular destroy evolutionary biology, after which creationism would become the prevailing view.

* Asserting that many of ID's arguments are deliberately deceitful.

Again, number 3 here is just an ad hom, number 2 is question begging (so what if they want creationism to prevail, that's not an argument against creationism!), and number 1 runs right into those philosophical issues I mentioned earlier.

The three criticisms of ID listed in the anon edit above that got taken out were pretty good, why were they removed?!

The Intelligent Design movements makes arguments on two fronts: positive arguments for evidence of an Intelligent Designer, and negative arguments that the theory of evolution cannot explain certain phenomena can be more reasonably explained by ID.

This is not true; ID arguments are almost exclusively negative arguments against evolution or some other natural explanation for something. Just because ID advocates claim that these are positive arguments does not make them so.

Positive Arguments

At the heart of intelligent design lies the belief that the universe in general and life in particular show signs of having been designed by an intelligent agent. Examples of intelligent design theories include:

Irreducible complexity

Again, IC is NOT a positive argument in favor of ID, it is a negative argument against the sufficiency of natural selection.

According to the theory of evolution, genetic variations occur randomly, and environmental stress selects against those variations that are not as advantageous as others. All life therefore shares a common ancestor...

This is a non-sequitur. Common ancestry is inferred by comparative anatomy, comparitive genetics, the fossil record, biogeography, etc. It is not inferred from random mutation. Who wrote this?

Macroevolution

The debate over macroevolution has shifted in recent years.

This part is flat-out wrong in every single respect. Contrary to popular belief, PE had almost no lasting effect on evolutionary theory and certainly did not change the mainstream view of "macro" evolution.

The ID view of "macro" evolution is, as with everything else, highly inconsistent. Some ID advocates have no problem with common ancestry whereas others are YECs. ID adovcates utilize arguments against common ancestry but there is no specific pattern or continunity to those critiques. They simply use whatever is available.

It goes on. Aside from many specific problems, the whole article is poorly organized (or I should say, not organized at all). What exists right now stands as a discontinuous jumble of paragraphs. I would be happy to try to edit some stuff and help reorganize it, but I'm afraid it will just get reverted. --Theyeti 20:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

fantastic work -- you should have seen what it looked like 3 days ago:). Ungtss 21:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ID arguments -> ID criticisms

Why was this changed? IMO the header was better as "arguments" considering the subject it dealt with (irreducible complexity). Joe D (t) 19:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Confusions on ID and science

There are some good arguments for evolution and against ID theory. Nonetheless, there are also some bad ones.

The scientific community overwhelmingly rejects ID, which it considers to be pseudoscience because it violates the accepted principles of scientific philosophy of naturalism and falsifiability.

The criterion of falsifiability does not quite work in real philosophy of science (confer the Duhem-Quine problem). And intelligent design makes no reference to the supernatural, so it's difficult to say it violates naturalism as well. It's perfectly legitimate to point out that the majority of scientists reject ID, however.

ID, it is argued, does not qualify as a scientific theory. It is based on a purely eliminative inference, makes no positive statements about Earth history, lacks a research program, etc.

ID actually does make positive statements (however incorrect) about Earth history; one example being that some artificial intervention took place. ID also does research (however flawed their research is). William Dembski's The Design Inference is a case in point of a research project. One could attack these as scientifically flawed etc. but it is not worthwhile to ignore their existence.

Arguments against the sufficiency of natural causes, also known as "God of the gaps" arguments, are highly prone to failure. The history of science shows that gaps in our knowledge become continuously filled in.

The "God of the gaps" argument does not seem compelling. One reason is that there is no deity in ID, though there is a designer. So this perhaps could be said a "designer of the gaps" argument. But again this does not seem compelling. Obviously, if there are no gaps in the fabric of natural causation, then appealing to artificial intervention will get us off track. But if there are such gaps, failing to recognize them on principle will equally get us off track. And it is quite obvious that such gaps do exist. Archaeologists frequently detect intelligent design for example (e.g. the Rosetta Stone).

To underscore the pseudo-scientific nature of ID, in the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington looked through thousands of scientific journals searching for any articles on intelligent design or creation science—he didn't find any.

It should be noted that the claim of ID theorists not publishing their work or having their work cited in the peer-reviewed literature is false. While not in a scientific journal, the book The Design Inference was heavily peer-reviewed before Cambridge studies published it. It's also worth noting that the book was cited favorably in peer-reviewed scientific literature:

Chiu, D.K.Y. and Lui, T.H. Integrated use of multiple interdependent patterns for biomolecular sequence analysis. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems. Vol.4, No.3, Sept. 2002, pp.766-775. Reference number [10].

See my comments on Chiu and Lui, and other claims of ID in peer reviewed literature, at the top of /Archive3. — B.Bryant 21:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Being published in scientific journals is a questionable criterion for scientific coherency when it comes ot evaluating the validity of a new and novel theory (as modern ID is). Journals tend to enforce orthodoxy, whether justified or not. One example for this is http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm where a correspondence is recorded. Confer this quote from Behe:

Well, I guess I should have expected it, but I have to admit I'm disappointed. For the record I'd like to point out that the "senior [journal] advisor" who reviewed my recent submission ("Obstacles to gene duplication . . .") didn't react to my actual arguments in the paper, but to associations he made. The manuscript did not argue for intelligent design, nor did it say that complex systems would never be explained within Darwinian theory. Rather, it just made the simple, obvious, and unarguable point that gene duplication by itself is an incomplete explanation. Apparently, however, my skepticism about Darwinism overshadowed all other points.

Behe didn't argue for ID, and yet the article was summarily rejected for all the wrong reasons. Even if modern ID theory were scientifically sound, a peer-reviewed scientific journal is about the last place it would be found. Of course, one can still attack ID on scientific grounds (e.g. the actual evidence, as opposed to its popularity).

Let me adress a couple of these...

Earth history -- ID does claim that there was intervention, but it says nothing about of *what kind* or *when*, hence it makes no statements about *history*. That it makes at least one positive statement (however vague) is true, but it is not a historical statement. Both Young Earth Creationism and a 4.5 billion year old Earth are equally compatible with ID. If ID said anything about history, then we would have some basis on which to choose between these.

Peer Review -- One could argue over specific examples, but as a general rule, ID proponents do not attempt to publish in peer reviewed journals, prefering instead to write books targeted to lay audiences. Dembski has even said that he prefers it this way because he makes more money. The claim that peer review is a "questionable criterion" is itself highly questionable; nearly every new and novel theory that was eventually accepted over the last 100 years first appeared in peer reviewed literature. If you disagree, name some counter-examples.

Research -- The Design Inference contains no original research. It is a philosophical argument. While some ID proponents do research as part of their day job, there is no work that can unequivocally be called "ID research". There exists no ID research program, nor are there any ideas for how to build one. The closest advocates have come is proposing to test one or more facets of evolutionary theory, which is not ID research.

God of the Gaps -- Or designer of the gaps if you prefer, is a falacious style of argument. It is one in which a gap in knowledge is claimed to be positive evidence of something. ID advocates can claim that this is not their line of argument, but others disagree, hence it's a major point of criticism. The fact that gaps exist is not in dispute, what is in dispute is whether the gaps per se constitute evidence for an undetectable entity. Human built artifacts like the Rosetta Stone are of a completely different category because we know that humans were around to build them, hence there was no "gap". We don't argue for the existence of humans based on the Rosetta Stone.

-- I agree about the bit about falsifiability, and somewhat on "naturalism", but the problem is that most ID proponents make claims about the sufficiency of "naturalism" without ever defining what they mean. It's sensible therefore to assume that ID is an appeal to the supernatural. ID advocates sometimes try to use "intelligence" as the antithesis of "natural", but this begs the question of what "intelligence" is supposed to mean. Only in the minds of ID advocates is "intelligence" some generic property of the universe that exists apart from physical context. No one else uses it that way. --Theyeti 01:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Scientific supernaturalism

I have a tremendous problem with this sentence, in the first paragraph of the intro:

More broadly, ID is a challenge to the concept of naturalism within scientific philosophy, and an attempt to reserve a place within science for the supernatural.

Can we really say this with a straight face? I have no problem with accurately representing what ID claims, but I do have problems couching the patently absurd in neutral language. Graft 19:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

it may be absurd, but that is precisely what ID is attempting to do. the proper approach i think is to look at the article and say, "i think that's crazy," rather than to alter the article to deny or obscure exactly what ID is attempting to do. what do you think? Ungtss 00:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's obviously impossible for ID to reserve a place for the supernatural within science, since the supernatural is, by definition, out of the purview of science. ID may CLAIM to be a challenge to the concept of naturalism within scientific philosophy, etc., but this cannot be. It cannot BE a challenge to the concept of naturalism within scientific philosophy, because this is impossible. Scientific philosophy requires naturalism. It cannot operate on the supernatural, which is by definition impenetrable to scientific investigation. ID may either be a challenge to science itself, or it may not be appealing to the supernatural. It may claim to be the above, but it cannot be described as actually BEING the above - it must be wrong if it makes that claim. I'm not familiar enough to state which one of these possibilities is the truth. Graft 00:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

may i suggest that there are two competing definitions for scientific philosophy:

1) one, held by nearly all mainstream scientists, that it requires naturalism

2) another, held by prooponents of ID, that it does not require strict naturalism.

you might want to consider that until about 1939, the vast majority of mainstream scientists ascribed to "orthogenetics" -- that is, the idea that microevolution occured naturalistically, but macroevolution occured through the intervention of God. that illustrates a different approach to the question, "does science = naturalism." ID simply ascribes to the "old way." it may be the "wrong way," but it's still an alternative. Ungtss 00:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would it be fair to characterize the ID argument as a criticism of the arrogance of scientific naturalism--the claim that everything can be best explained via science--rather than a claim that science itself needs to incorporate the supernatural? In other words, could we accurately portray ID as an argument that science should allow for the possibility of realities (a first-cause "designer" of life, in this case) that exist outside the purview of naturalistic science?--BTfromLA 04:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

that is EXACTLY it:). to take it a step further, to ID, the "supernatural" is just as "natural" as anything else in the sense of being real, tangible, and powerful -- the supernatural just APPEARS supernatural to us, because we cannot yet understand it or the laws of nature by which it operates. In fact, if there IS a creator, he is more "REAL" than WE are. To exclude the possibility of a designer for life on earth -- divine or not -- is to arbitrarily eliminate a hypothesis from the realm of possibility -- especially when (ID argues) there is a substantial amount of evidence to make it a reasonable belief. maybe ID is crazy ... but that's their view of science, and i think it's only fair to articulate it clearly on the page:). Ungtss 04:33, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this conjecture has stepped outside of the normal range of ID and scientific beliefs. There is a subset of ID that does not raise questions about the supernatural -- for example, the part of ID that would hypothesize a natural designer (e.g. aliens). But the most common form of ID finally proposes that the personal god of Christianity is the hypothesized designer. Such a god is clearly supernatural, e.g. not bound by the laws of physics, and separate but causally powerful in the natural world -- in whatever way that might be possible. It may be fair to point out that some forms of ID might be arguing that supernaturalism should be admitted in science -- which could be logically permissible if your philosophy of science doesn't explicitly exclude the supernatural. But that's about as far as I think we can go -- unless you can find a respectable published account otherwise. --Rikurzhen 04:45, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

i agree. that's why the text says, More broadly, ID is a challenge to the concept of naturalism within scientific philosophy, and an attempt to reserve a place within science for the supernatural -- a broad statement that i think is appropriate, and should not be erased as was suggested at the beginning of this discussion. i was just presenting one of several ID views on the supernatural that i thought complemented his comment:). Ungtss 05:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, what a critic of that view might want to argue is that ID is a terrible wedge to get supernaturalism into science and that a natural designer is all that the empirical evidence for design might ever support. I think that's a charitable way to interpret the original post, and I think that's an important point. --Rikurzhen 06:22, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

It is a misunderstanding of the Christian conception of God to say that He is "not bound by the laws of physics" as Rikurzhen does in his comments above. In fact the point is the that He, God, designed/created the laws of physics. The thrust of the ID argument is that nature offers abundant evidence of this. So saying that "God is supernatural" is in perhaps misleading; in reality--for those that believe in God--he is the source of nature! --DannyMuse 06:36, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The notion that God is supernatural is the standard Christian philosophy. For example, some suggest that amongst God's properties is omnipotence, and so God can do anything logically possible, including the physically impossible. I recognize that there are less prominent Christian philosophies that would incorporate a God that does not have the power to alter the laws of physics after creation -- however that God would clearly not be part of the ID theory since ID proposes that natural laws are not sufficient to explain biological complexity. --Rikurzhen 06:56, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

DannyMuse, perhaps you're thinking of arguments related to the anthropic principle. --Rikurzhen 07:06, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

rikurzhen, i think we need to recognize first that there are a great diversity of views within christianity regarding the supernatural -- for a brief list, see Supernatural. you've listed two possibilities: one, that God is limited by the laws of physics, another that he is free from any law whatsoever. but what of the possibility that he is a Law unto himself -- that he embodies principles of order, logic, and causation which are only partially reflected in his Creation? the last is not necessarily "less prominent ..." CS Lewis argued that philosophy very cogently in "The Great Divorce." If God is free from any law, then discovering his handiwork would be impossible -- he would be a true "God of the Gaps." But if he is a Law unto Himself, we'd expect to find a "common theme" throughout all of his artwork ... and that's what ID is claiming. Ungtss 15:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe this thread has confused intelligent design with creationism. ID encompasses a small subset of creationist belief. This is why many people think it is merely propaganda -- because it does little to support the Christian conceptions of God, but it does challenge natural evolution. But it does have a fairly clear definition, which we should keep in mind while we craft this article --- Intelligent design states that life is too complex to have evolved without the intervention of an (unnamed) intelligent designer. I recognize that Christians have a wide variety of views on God, but most of those views are not applied to intelligent design -- for good reasons. The hypothetical designer must have the power to meddle in the evolution of life on Earth in a way that suggests the existence of a designer, not merely a natural process. Thus, it could be a natural being, such as an alien. It could also be a kind of god. The problem of course, is what kind of being could be suggested by evidence of design. Parsimony favors certain beings over others. So conjecture about how all the Christian ideas of God are compatible with ID is basically a discussion of creationism -- where all/most Christian ideas of God are compatible with almost any theory. --Rikurzhen 18:39, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

i agree with you for the most part ... but with one important caveat. you said that id was a subset of creationism. don't you think it's more fair to say that creationism is a subset of ID, since all creationists believe in intelligent design of necessity, but believers in ID need not believe in God? Theistic creationism is one of the potential identities for the designer, but not the only one -- and is therefore relevent.

by analogy, punctuated equilibrium and gradualism are alternative descriptions of the broader "theory of evolution" -- but both are relevent in a discussion of the theory. wouldn't you see that both theistic and non-theistic potential designers are relevent to ID? Ungtss 21:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually neither of us got it strictly correct. ID is the claim that life is too complex to have naturally evolved without the intervention of an intelligent being. Not all creationist believe that -- for example, a creationist who believes that God created the universe in such a way that complex life is possible without direct intervention. That may be a small set of people -- theist evolutionists and proponents of deism. Likewise, ID permits a non-theist designer, and I suspect there are even fewer (or even zero) ID supporters who actually adopt that view.

My broader point is that ID proposes an intelligent designer that has an active role in the design of life, such that physics and alone is not sufficient to explain life. Thus, only certain views of God's interaction with the world are even suggested by ID. A historically passive God would not be suggested by evidence of an intelligent designer.

I am a scientist, and I am personally open to the idea that empirical evidence could be offered to suggest the existence of the supernatural which science would accept -- and I've read philosophy of science paper to that effect. So to the original question in this thread, you can take that as evidence that some philosophies of science permit scientific evidence for the supernatural. However, in the particular case of ID, it seems astronomically unlikely to me that such evidence will be found to support the supernatural in the details of complex life. My appraisal is that ID has not offered evidence of even a natural creator. --Rikurzhen 22:33, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

thanks! i'm not an expert on the topic by any stretch of the imagination -- i'm mostly just interested in learning and making sure both sides are accurately represented. i really appreciate your perspective -- it's rare to find a biologist who even considers the hypothesis before determining the ID has failed -- if i may ask, do you think evolutionists have provided substantially more evidence for naturalistic (i.e. macro)evolution than ID has presented evidence for a designer? if so ... what does it look like? Ungtss 00:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After Darwin, the null hypothesis is -- I think rightly -- that natural evolution is sufficient to explain complex life. It is the most parsimonious explanation -- predicts the fewest kinds of things and fits with naturalist physics, chemistry, etc. Thus, the burden would fall to ID to provide an example of complex life that cannot be explained by natural evolution. The reason current biologist reject ID is that while it could (in the logical possibility sense) have been true, so far there is truly no evidence for design. Whenever ID claims have been examined, and some of them have been very sophisticated, they turn out to not require a designer. Having gone thru so many such cases, the current consensus opinion is that ID as science was simply incorrect -- like so many scientific conjectures. However, the unfalsifiable claims that are sometimes associated with ID are of course beyond the scope of science.

In my opinion: Falsifiablity is much more likely to be essential to science than naturalism is. Falsifiablilty is the major philosophical problem for creationism/ID whereas naturalism is merely a conclusion of science, but open to revision. However, many scientists and some philosophers may claim otherewise. --Rikurzhen 08:28, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

thanks for articulating that so well for me:). i especially appreciate your description of it as a "null hypothesis" -- that explains why evolution is considered "fact" despite gaps in the evidence -- because nothing "better" has been presented. and the lesson learned is that if ID is ever to make headway, they'll have to present a comprehensive theory that explains more things than evolution, more accurately and more parsimoniosly, instead of in vague and unfalsifiable, "look -- THAT sure is mysterious" terms. thanks again! Ungtss 13:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A null hypothesis is a concept in statistics. The concept within scientific philosophy you mean is that of paradigms. The theory of evolution by means of natural selection is the central unifying paradigm of biology. It is the best fit model within certain caveats, that explains the observances. Naturalism allows the use of Occam's razor; falsifiability is important because the way you derive a paradigm is you falsify the alternatives, i.e. you can't prove a positive. That point is one of the reasons why irreducible complexity is such nonsense; you can't prove it. Dunc|☺ 13:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

thanks for clarifying ... another point tho ... just 'cause you can't prove something doesn't mean it isn't true: it just means you don't yet have to tools to study it. that's why i don't think ID is nonsense ... it may be dead wrong ... but i think humility requires us to recognize the limits of our knowledge ... and that ANYTHING could lay beyond those limits ... even God. Ungtss 14:08, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What you're talking about here is, what is within the limits of scientific examination? This is why much of creationism is considered mere philosophical speculation by biologists, which is one reason why biologists dislike attempts to portray creationism as an alternative to evolution. --Rikurzhen 18:56, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Another common bit of wisdom within biology is that you can't prove a negative. This is exactly what ID attempts to do, and why biologists will never take ID seriously. Graft 15:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bolyai and Gauss's negative (non-euclidean geometry) was einstein's positive (relativity). Ungtss 17:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that particular bit of wisdom may be better expressed, "lack of evidence" does not necessiarly imply "evidence of lack". So for example, lack of evidence of RNA to DNA transcripion (see the central dogma of molecular biology) was not evidence of its lack (indeed "reverse" transcription was eventually discovered). Because finding exceptions has become the rule, the only way to truly prove a negative in biology is to actually test all the possibilites (e.g. you could test each gene in a genome). ... resolving edit conflict ... what Graft said below --Rikurzhen 18:56, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

This is why I said "within biology", where lack of evidence often means you simply missed something or don't know where to look, and can't be taken as proof of anything. Mathematics (and physics) are far more theoretically rigorous than biology can be, which is more dependent on empirical observation. Graft 18:50, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Has this thread been satisfied? Can anything from this discourse be used to improve the article? --Rikurzhen 18:56, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

just trying to sharpen the issues a bit ...

thanks for the "lack of evidence versus evidence of lack" -- i guess in my mind they're not mutually exclusive -- you can truly never prove a negative ... but that doesn't mean that "because you can't prove it doesn't exist, it exists."

interesting distinction, Graft... point taken:). and i'd definitely agree with you on the topic of empirical i.e. observable biology ... but the questions of evolution and creation revolve around more theoretical questions ... not "what happens now" but "what happened then?" i.e. "HOW did life begin? HOW did whales get back into the ocean? HOW did man and apes diverge?" that's stuff we can't verify empirically because we weren't there ... but can only infer from the fossil record and beliefs about "what seems most reasonable" ... after all, ID won't dispute any observable and verifiable biology of today ... just the inferences about the past, which take a more theoretical flavor. what do you think?

i've found this thread to be very useful ... sounds like we've got a good group of perspectives around the table ... would anyone like to incorporate this into a brief discussion on "the philosophy of science and ID?" Ungtss 19:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On improving the article, perhaps we could talk about the historical memetic evolution of scientific philosopy from protoscience to science proper, and how the IDists want to revert back to a form of protoscience which given the advances in scientific philsophy within the 20th century (viz Kuhn and Popper) makes it pseudoscience. Dunc|☺ 19:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And Utguss, IDists do dispute observable and verifiable biology of today; that is the crux of their and other creationists arguments. Now, another aspect of scientific philosophy that is important is the principle of uniformitarianism; the assumption that the same forces acted in the past as they do now if, unless there is good evidence otherwise. Dunc|☺ 19:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps one thing that does not come thru clearly in the article is the distinction (or lack thereof) between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism as it relates to ID. --Rikurzhen 20:06, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Harris, i am not aware of any conflict between ID and the observable biology of the day, especially as i do not dispute it myself -- i only question the "principle of uniformitarianism," as i find it to be a big assumption. as to the evolution of science from protoscience ... that takes for granted naturalistic assumptions that are not universal -- one pov of several. would you please point me in the right direction of finding ID literature that disputes any of the fossils found, or the nature of the genome, microevolution, or any experiment or observation done today? i think what you will find is persistent and occasionally annoying challenges to INTERPRETATIONS of science based on naturalism and uniformitarianism. Ungtss 00:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That does not surprise me. You have persistently shown that you have a lot of enthusiasm and a complete lack of knowledge. Creationists' principle argument is that evolution is statistically unlikely. They do this principally by constructing strawman arguments of evolution. See any creationist book that discusses anything other than metaphysics.

i'd like to come to a better understanding, sir, and i think the first step is to realize that neither of us is an idiot. would you consent to that a priori assumption, just for the sake of argument?

your statement above showed that you did not understand what i said. creationists did NOT dispute that evolution is observable today ... and THAT is all the science can VERIFY, empirically, because that's all we can see today. what creationists argue is that the evolution observable today CANNOT account for things UNSEEN -- the alleged evolution of all life from a common ancestor -- because it was not observed firsthand by any scientist, because is not supported by fossil evidence, because it is extremely statistically unlikely, and because (irreducible complexity types would argue) it is logically impossible.

evolutionist arguments for common ancestry are NOT based on empirical evidence. they are based on empirical evidence EXTRAPOLATED through the assumptions of naturalism and uniformatism, assumptions which creationists reject, a priori, and evolutionists accept, a priori. Ungtss 15:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On metaphysics, ultimately we cannot know for sure anything, e.g. George Bush may be a terrible figment of our collective imaginations. That is why the first principle of science is naturalism; it places a limit on what can be known and excludes speculation. There can be speculation outside of science, but only knowledge within.

creationists assert that you are SPECULATING on uniformatism. what in this universe is uniform? is time uniform? no. is life uniform? no. is F=ma uniform? no. is the structure of the atom and subatomic particles uniform? no. the only thing we THINK to be uniform right now is the speed of light ... and a few people even argue that THAT'S been changing. evolutionists base their theory of evolution on an ASSUMPTION of uniformism. maybe that assumption is right, but it is still an assumption. Ungtss 15:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uniformitarianism is an accepted part of scientific philosophy. In short, one can be sure that the Darwinian algorithm works today as it did 100 million years ago. Just as one can be sure that water boiled at 100*C, or that the Earth orbited the Sun. You would not those would you? If not, all retrospective sciences would not be possible. Of course, it is possible that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bbhhh) tricked us scientists by providing evidence for evolution to test our faith in her. How stupid of us to have fallen for it.Dunc|☺ 10:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i understand that it is accepted by most scientists. personally, however, i find it to be a big and scary assumption: bigger and scarier, in fact, than the equally a priori assumption that God created the universe. Ungtss 14:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

rikurzhen -- that's an excellent point. how would you recommend fleshing that out? Ungtss 00:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would be easy to point you in that direction if ID were interested in scientific debate - it has never engaged evolutionary biologists and always directs its arguments at the public (which can be fooled by sophistry). All of these are fine arguments to be having if there were some solid weight that ID is resting on, but the presumption that ID actually has anything with which to mount a challenge to the assumption of naturalism seems to be flawed in the first place. The only argument of any merit I've seen is Behe's irreducible complexity, which is hardly a challenge to naturalism at all. Graft 01:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

True. The naturalism debate is largely "academic". --Rikurzhen 03:09, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

i agree with you for the most part, but what i meant was that i think there are two parts to the issue here:

1) -- empirical observation and study of life today and the fossil record
2) -- interpretation of that evidence and inferences regarding past events, based on philosophical presuppositions.

i don't think you'll find anyone from id who disputes the empirical evidence -- the studies of the genome and genetic structure and evolution evident today and the fossil record seem to be accepted by both sides. all id + creationists dispute (to my knowledge) is the philosophical presuppositions that lead to INTERPRETATION of the empirical evidence. while evolution, it seems, presumes naturalism and uniformitarianism and comes to the inevitable conclusion of evolution, ID does not assume either, and leaves open other options -- while creation presumes that order can only come from greater order and intelligence -- leading to their INEVITABLE conclusion that a God of some sort created the universe.

i think that puts the issues in a difficult place, because there's no evidence to argue over -- the ONLY thing to argue over is assumptions and philosophy. and those assumptions are beyond the realm of empirical evidence -- they are, it seems to me, a priori. as long as mainstream science presumes naturalism and uniformitarianism, evolution will be the only logical conclusion -- and gaps and questions in the theory are just refinements leading toward that inevitable goal. but if you question those assumptions, the SAME evidence can be interpretted in a radically different way -- but how can you prove or disprove the assumptions!? what do y'all think? Ungtss 03:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem with supernaturalism, and the reason why I believe it has no place within science, is that, to paraphrase Lewontin, once God gets His foot in the door, there's no end to the mischief he can cause. That is, God can be invoked to explain ANYTHING - God is a wild-card that precludes the possibility of further inquiry. An omnipotent being can arrange things however it wishes; this negates rationality and empiricism. This may actually BE the nature of the universe, but such a view cannot be compatible with the form of knowledge we call "science".

I am somewhat mystified how we can say that ID mounts a challenge in this regard when it does nothing than present the rhetorical argument. A challenge would hopefully involve actual evidence of the failure of empiricism to explain the world. No such evidence has been presented. So I'm not sure what we mean by "challenge". What, exactly, are scientists supposed to answer? Graft 08:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i guess what i was trying to say is that naturalism and uniformitism are non-falsifiable -- they cannot be challenged -- they are a priori.

in your first paragraph, you described God as the wildcard who can be used to explain anything we don't understand. but you stated in your second paragraph that ID must challenge empiricism by showing things it can't explain. do you see the conundrum? anytime ID points to something science doesn't adequately understand empirically (like, i submit, abiogenesis and macroevolution, but also such things as "how did the moon get into its orbit?" and "how did life survive on earth when the atmosphere was entirely carbon dioxide, with no oxygen available to form ozone, leaving early life completely exposed to UV rays?") those questions get the same pat response, "well ... that's not a challenge to naturalism ... we haven't fully explained it yet, but here's the best explanation we have thusfar in naturalistic terms."

ID finds itself in a double bind. every time it points to a "gap" in naturalism, naturalism says, "that's just a god of the gaps!" what sort of challenge COULD ID mount to naturalism that wouldn't be subject to the "god of the gaps" response?

it's the same double bind that naturalism finds itself with ID, i think. everytime science points to a naturalistic explanation for something, ID looks at the new system and responds, "but God made THAT happen!"

and nobody's communicating very well:).

one could argue that naturalism and supernaturalism are both non-falsifiable in that respect -- because even if God appeared in the heavens with all his angels, a naturalist could just say, "oh -- it's just some plan by religious nuts using some holographic technology we don't understand." and even if science came up with all the missing links in the world, creationists could just say, "God just created those animals separately, too -- you haven't shown they were related, because you didn't see it."

does this make sense to anyone? Ungtss 14:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think, contrary to most movies, if the rapture happened and Jesus came down with a flaming sword, few scientists would be doggedly insisting that there must be a naturalistic explanation. But an unequivocal miracle is the only event that could overturn science. ID wishes to prove that life must have been formed by miraculous processes; fine. But merely wishing to do so is not a challenge. Correct? This is all I'm trying to say. Graft 18:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i agree with you completely, and if we'd BEEN there at the origin of life, i think we could determine whether we had that "unequivocal miracule" or not. but all we've got now is our theories. in that context, when we don't have the fossils that showed how it happened, or any coherent mechanism for abiogenesis, i think assuming a miracle happened is no more tenuous than assuming no miracle happened. Ungtss 18:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This line of discussion has become derailed from the journalistic question of how to describe the ID claims, but I can't resist butting in to strongly disagree with what you just said, Ungtss. Think about it--you are claiming that when faced with the unknown, it is reasonable to assume that the solution to that problem of the unknown will contradict all established knowledge. Do you really mean that? Is there any other question, in any of sphere of knowledge, in which you would accept such an outlandish assumption?--BTfromLA 21:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't intend to derail the discussion from the journalistic question - this is precisely what I'm asking. is it appropriate to describe ID as a challenge to the concept of naturalism within science, since a) it's questionable whether supernaturalism is possible within the framework of science, and b) ID has not, to date, actually made any attempt to demonstrate the necessity of assuming supernaturalism. Graft 21:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For my 2¢ about how to introduce the ID claims without getting bogged down in the issue of science embracing the supernatural, see my first post, above. --BTfromLA 22:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wrote this offline while traveling today, but it still seems appropriate. I think the sentence that originated this thread can stay, but it may need to be further explained or juxtaposed with a rebuttal. I believe that Graft’s comments in this thread are accurately reflecting to a good approximation the majority (or at least textbook) opinion of philosophy of science. In the hope that I can quell this debate and get the topic resolved, I will offer an alternative philosophy of science that should satisfy Ungtss’ objections. I do not take naturalism to be a first principle of science. Rather I believe naturalism is a conclusion of modern science, and like other conclusions it is open to revision. However, the kind of evidence that would cause a change in naturalism (as I said before) is astronomically unlikely to be found in the ID research program. It would probably require the direct and repeated observation of a miracle, of which the best explanation is divine intervention. At present, the naturalism hypothesis has been so radically successful in explaining the world that scientists have rightly adopted it as a working principle, see methodological naturalism. But I do not think that if pressed most scientists would say that they adopt philosophical naturalism as a *first principle*. However, a second related principle they seem to accept is that divine revelation is not a (reliable) source of knowledge; in contrast with creationists. For that reason, the suggestion that the god of Christianity is the hypothetical intelligent designer is completely out of the reasonable range of scientific speculation (lack of reliable evidence suggesting the existence of such a god). So, I think it is true (but a highly charitable stretch) to say that ID is an attempt to interject supernaturalism into science. To offer an analogy, this is like saying that poking an elephant with a tooth pick is an attempt to kill it. ID has been around long to enough to perhaps warrant the added statement that ID has failed in its attempt with respect to the scientific community. In contrast, the majority of the public already believes in the supernatural. --Rikurzhen 01:10, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

i think that's a great start of a description of the issue right there, rikurzhen -- would you be willing to write up a draft?

just to clarify a bit further ... in my point of view, it is MORE reasonable to assume that order came from a designer than by chance. i don't see it as contrary to empirical evidence. i have never heard of or seen order arising from non-order except through the influence of an outside force comprised of GREATER order -- and ultimately a force that has a WILL to bring order. the arguments about the second law of thermodynamics and entropy, and the expanding universe convince me that that universe is LESS ordered than it used to be, not more. i cannot fathom how the moon came to be in such a perfectly balanced orbit by chance ... and no scientific explanation has sounded even the slightest bit reasonable to me. i think it's a miracle, and i think it's a miracle everytime a baby is born, or i see the fossils of the dinosaurs. i won't deny it -- it's a priori -- but it's my pov and 25 years of education hasn't changed my mind yet ... and i'm not alone -- like rikurzhen said, the majority of the general public accept the supernatural already -- it happens to many of everytime we look at the stars. that's the issue i'd like to raise on the page somehow -- an open and fair description of how and why the two pov's differ -- so we can get to the heart of the matter. we can call ID crazy all day, but until we figure out and explain WHY people honestly believe it, we haven't provided a fair article. please don't misunderstand me -- i'm not trying to convince anybody -- i'm just trying to articulate the mentality that's driving ID -- my mentality which i hold unashamedly -- so we can fairly represent it on the page. perhaps by understanding my pov better, good scientists such as yourselves will be able to find more articulate ways of defusing supernaturalism. or maybe not:). what do you think? Ungtss 01:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

just to sharpen the issues ... i think the ID response would be that empiricism is a superior explanation for MANY things that were once the realm of religion, amd and that is probably the reason for the confidence the scientific community has in empiricism. but just because a weapon works in one battle does not necessarily mean it will work in the next -- and just as BTfromLA said, ID is saying, "look, fellas, your empirical methods have worked in a lot of ways -- but we DON'T think they're working here." not trying to KILL the elephant (because naturalism works in the vast majority of cases ... but not letting the elephant into the glass shop either (because in the opinion of creationists, science has failed to present reasonable naturalistic explanations for stuff like abiogenesis and macroevolution). so ID is not trying to kill the elephant -- in fact, we're rather fond of it for the most part. but we're just trying to allow for the existence of MORE than the elephant. is this following? Ungtss 02:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As to describing ID, I (not surprisingly) agree--it seems that it makes more sense to describe the ID arguments, especially when referring to the larger critique of philosophic "naturalism," as a critique of the arrogance of the scientific worldview that fails to allow for the possibilty of non-naturalistic realities at any level of experience, as opposed to an attempt to make room for the supernatural within science. Does that dinstinction make sense?

And it follows from this that the ID proponents, though citing science, primarily aim their arguments not at scientists but at a larger public. (It could be argued that the ID movement is primarily a political movement, not a scientific one.)--BTfromLA 03:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Empiricism... that is definitely a first principle of science. Perhaps ID is better described an an attack on methodological naturalism; as a quasi-political movement; and as primarily directed at the public, not the scientific community. Related: the philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism articles are too short on details to support this article fully. --Rikurzhen 04:12, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's that easy to describe ID as a quasi-political movement, since the ID movement wishes to cast itself as a scientific movement, and present ID as igniting a storm of scientific controversy. This is a position easily refuted if so desired, but it's up to us how charitable we'd like to be with regards to that position. Not sure what the "neutral" thing to do here is. Graft 05:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course. The point I'm trying to get at is -- is there a qualification or rebuttal we can attach to the sentence you first posted about that will satisfy the problem? For example...

More broadly, supporters of ID seek to challenge to the concept of naturalism within scientific philosophy, in order to reserve a place within science for the supernatural. The majority of the scientific community has not been pursuaded to abandon methodological naturalism. However, supernaturalism remains popular among the public in the US and other countries, where ID enjoys popular support.

A start? --Rikurzhen 05:54, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Here's how it looks now, after some meddling by me. Comments?:

More broadly, the ID movement challenges the dominant philosophical premise of naturalism within science and throughout secular academic discourse; ID proponents argue that there are intellectually sound reasons for accepting the possibility of supernatural realities.--BTfromLA 18:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Archives