Intelligent Design

[Dr.Who]

Right, except that there is no "new kind of science", only the old kind that depends not on philosophical rumination or speculation, but on hard data and empirical proof. Creationism is offered by some as an alternative to what has stood the test of scientific scrutiny, which of course is absurd. Creationism, meaning that life on Earth is the result of intelligence, is quite compatible with science. It just is not a part of that science.

There is no conflict between the philosophy of creation and science, just between someone's interpretation of ancient writings and known facts.

Ahh, if only science were as tested as we would like. If only there were as much hard data and empirical proof as we would like. Unfortunately not only are philosophical ruminations and speculation woven into the conclusions of science but politics is too.

 

[Dr.Who]

I'm sorry but I do not live in the us therefore I do not have direct experience of what you are talking about.

I was educated in primary and secondary school in a catholic school. We had religion classes along with everything else. We were taught early of the worldly and other-worldly spheres of inquiry and that they do not necessarily conflict with one another. We were taught that the islamic segment of our population are our brothers hence need to be respected as much as we demand respect from others. And yes, we have christian fundamentalists preaching divisive nonsense and all they can count as followers are the most ignorant sort.

When I hear 'intelligent design', the first thing that comes to mind is the complexity of creation as described by science and how it merely reinforces what any sane individual would conclude by himself -- this couldn't possibly be random. And you are free to voice this opinion whether you are in a physics classroom or a philosophy classroom.

If you mean that among the Christian fundamentalists in your country some of them preach nonsense that is accepted by the most ignorant - then I have no doubt.

But if you mean that the Christian Fundamentalist are all preaching nonsense then I would include you among the ignorant.

 

[Dr.Who]

If philosophy has a purpose, then that's it. When it drives scientific research, the research still has to rely on empirical proof, not philosophy.

It was philosophy that made Einstein work on the theory of relativity. It is mathematics that supports that theory. If there were no empirical evidence for space time, then it would be the philosophy of relativity.

The same with creationism. There is a philosophy of creationism, but no proof of a creator. There is a theory of evolution, supported by empirical data, not by philosophy. There is a philosophy that opinions supported by data are more believable than those supported merely by speculation.

Things are just not that black and white.

Thinking about the supernatural is not without order and validity.

While even from the first draft of Darwin's paper he specifically stated that evolution took place without any input from a creator (not a scientific thought). Darwin's philosophy crept in from the beginning and has remained among many followers of evolution to this day.

 

[PLC1]

Things are just not that black and white.

Thinking about the supernatural is not without order and validity.

While even from the first draft of Darwin's paper he specifically stated that evolution took place without any input from a creator (not a scientific thought). Darwin's philosophy crept in from the beginning and has remained among many followers of evolution to this day.

Thinking about the supernatural is not without order and validity, but it is without empirical proof.

Whatever Darwin put in his first draft, there is no scientific evidence that a creator is or is not involved in evolution. If by a "follower of evolution" you mean someone who has studied the theory and knows what it is all about, then yes, there are some who think it is evidence that there is no creator. That is a part of their philosophy, however, and not a part of the theory of evolution.

 

[Dr.Who]

Thinking about the supernatural is not without order and validity, but it is without empirical proof.

Whatever Darwin put in his first draft, there is no scientific evidence that a creator is or is not involved in evolution. If by a "follower of evolution" you mean someone who has studied the theory and knows what it is all about, then yes, there are some who think it is evidence that there is no creator. That is a part of their philosophy, however, and not a part of the theory of evolution.

I am quite sure that statements that there is no creator are not part of the official theory of evolution.

But it is quite easy to find laypeople and scientists alike who think that science is incompatible with a creator.

Why, if the very best candidate for a job described by the hiring committee as "breathtakingly above the other applicants."

were to give a lecture somewhere and write in his notes that evolution includes "significant scientific problems" and includes "unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations," then he would not get the job.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/17/scientist-alleges-religious-discrimination-ky/#ixzz1JGU5OAgn

 

[PLC1]

I am quite sure that statements that there is no creator are not part of the official theory of evolution.

But it is quite easy to find laypeople and scientists alike who think that science is incompatible with a creator.

Why, if the very best candidate for a job described by the hiring committee as "breathtakingly above the other applicants."

were to give a lecture somewhere and write in his notes that evolution includes "significant scientific problems" and includes "unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations," then he would not get the job.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/17/scientist-alleges-religious-discrimination-ky/#ixzz1JGU5OAgn

It sounds like this guy has a good case.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

To make it simple...

ID...is Faith pretending to be science...thats it.
Maybe in science we should talk about how ghosts are real as well, since its got at least as much science behind it.

Faith does not have to be wrong...but its not science.

 

[numinus]

Scientific knowledge is not in the realm of "pure ideas" That is philosophy. Science depends on empirical data, including mathematical proofs. Of course, science isn't limited to position and momentum.

Mathematical proofs are pure ideas. I posted the definition of propositional logic in the other thread. There is a relationship between the rules of mathematics with propositions -- that the real, common-sense world behaves according to the rules of pure ideas.

One can logically infer that matter is made up of very small, indivisible particles even if no one has ever seen these indivisible particles. Why? Because something that can be divided indefinitely leads to a some logical defect.

 

[numinus]

But if you mean that the Christian Fundamentalist are all preaching nonsense then I would include you among the ignorant.

I wonder what on earth I said that leads you to think that?

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

I look a the question (Is there an Intelligent Design?) simply.

• I ask: Is there a method by which we can Research and Prove that there could not be any other way the universe could form and create the outcomes we observe?
  
• Hypothesis: I form the theory.
  
• Then I test the theory Experimentally.
  
• Analyze the Test Reults and draw my conclusions for peer review.

If I cannot go through this process, then I cannot conduct the science. Anything that I image - but cannot test, is philosphy.

Is there a way to put the question to the test?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[numinus]

et al,

I look a the question (Is there an Intelligent Design?) simply.

• I ask: Is there a method by which we can Research and Prove that there could not be any other way the universe could form and create the outcomes we observe?
  
• Hypothesis: I form the theory.
  
• Then I test the theory Experimentally.
  
• Analyze the Test Reults and draw my conclusions for peer review.

If I cannot go through this process, then I cannot conduct the science. Anything that I image - but cannot test, is philosphy.

Is there a way to put the question to the test?

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm sorry but what you imagine is simply that -- your imagination.

Science itself (formerly called natural philosophy), is a philosophical school of thought. Currently, there is a line of inquiry called the philosophy of science dealing with the validity of certain premises that govern science. And frankly, there are scientific fields (psychology, for one) that sounds more fiction than the most outrageous philosophy out there.

 

[RoccoR]

numinus, et al,

Yes, I here this quite frequencly from the Soft Science crowd. I should know better than to enter into these Philosophical Discussions.

I'm sorry but what you imagine is simply that -- your imagination.

Science itself (formerly called natural philosophy), is a philosophical school of thought. Currently, there is a line of inquiry called the philosophy of science dealing with the validity of certain premises that govern science. And frankly, there are scientific fields (psychology, for one) that sounds more fiction than the most outrageous philosophy out there.

(COMMENT)

There is a well know methodology called The Scientific Process. Science is more than just an intellectual activity; it encompasses the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Steps in the Scientific Process

• Purpose
• Research
• Hypothesis
• Materials
• Procedure
• Results
• Conclusion

We must be careful of engaging in Pseudo-Science and Bad-Science. But it is important to recognize what "science" is and what it can - and - what it is not and cannot do. Our testing and experimentation must be repricated by our peers and yield the same predictable results.

There is no science today that can answer the question as to whether there is a "Supreme Being" or whether there is an "intelligent design" woven into the fabric of the universe. We are not even sure of the scope and nature of the universe. Scientific Method is a never-ending process in which we can understand only the pieces of nature and the universe we can examine and observe. But always included in that process are the elements of testing and evaluation; based on our current understanding --- which is constantly evolving.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Dr.Who]

n

There is no science today that can answer the question as to whether there is a "Supreme Being" or whether there is an "intelligent design" woven into the fabric of the universe. We are not even sure of the scope and nature of the universe. Scientific Method is a never-ending process in which we can understand only the pieces of nature and the universe we can examine and observe. But always included in that process are the elements of testing and evaluation; based on our current understanding --- which is constantly evolving.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course science can answer the question of whether there is a supreme being or ID.

It need only find empirical evidence and evaluate that evidence. The fact that we have not been discussing that empirical evidence might mean that it is not open to be seen but does not mean that it cannot ever be seen.

 

[numinus]

numinus, et al,

Yes, I here this quite frequencly from the Soft Science crowd. I should know better than to enter into these Philosophical Discussions.

​

(COMMENT)

There is a well know methodology called The Scientific Process. Science is more than just an intellectual activity; it encompasses the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Steps in the Scientific Process

• Purpose
• Research
• Hypothesis
• Materials
• Procedure
• Results
• Conclusion

We must be careful of engaging in Pseudo-Science and Bad-Science. But it is important to recognize what "science" is and what it can - and - what it is not and cannot do. Our testing and experimentation must be repricated by our peers and yield the same predictable results.

There is no science today that can answer the question as to whether there is a "Supreme Being" or whether there is an "intelligent design" woven into the fabric of the universe. We are not even sure of the scope and nature of the universe. Scientific Method is a never-ending process in which we can understand only the pieces of nature and the universe we can examine and observe. But always included in that process are the elements of testing and evaluation; based on our current understanding --- which is constantly evolving.

Most Respectfully,
R

I understand the scientific method perfectly. I also understand that it is not something rigid. We get knowledge wherever we can. Often times, we even stumble on to it.

The point I am driving at is simple -- as far as theories are concerned, we do not have the luxury to dismiss ideas off-hand. The purpose of philosophy, as in science, is to seek the truth, wherever that truth leads.

Remember -- reality is essentially probabilistic. It allows for possibilities that are metaphysical.

 

[Dr.Who]

The point I am driving at is simple -- as far as theories are concerned, we do not have the luxury to dismiss ideas off-hand. The purpose of philosophy, as in science, is to seek the truth, wherever that truth leads.

If the purpose of science is to seek truth what happens when whole avenues of research are not addressed? Of course, I mean that science does not investigate nor can it investigate supernatural.

And I agree that it should not. The need to focus on empirical data is how human bias is checked.

But people cannot forget that science is intentionally hamstrung and a lack of investigation into an area or a lack of results from those non-existent investigations cannot be used to draw conclusions.