very well written opinion piece against intelligent design

[jdfreefly 1]

I don't usually post at work....but this was pretty damn good.

Saw this on slashdot. Given some of my own arguments against evolutionary theory, I found this to be a very well written piece.

I especially like the parts about the computer simulations where complex logic operations like EQU was evolved, and who some basic functions like NAND were evolved out of existence.

He sights a lot of works so there is plenty of white rabbits to go off and chase.

The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

The premise of Intelligent Design is that the universe is so unimaginably complex and perfect that it must have been created by an intelligent designer.

For this intelligent designer to create such a complex and perfect(?) universe, the intelligent designer would have to be pretty complex itself... So where did the intelligent designer come from?

It has always been interesting to me that a lot of people seem to need an answer for where WE came from, but are perfectly content not knowing where "God" came from. ("God just is," seems to be the common answer to that question.)


(I put a ? next to the "perfect" in that quote because I personally don't think of the universe as being "perfect".)

[kallend 2,117]

"Intelligent Design" fails to meet the most basic criterion for being science.

That's really all that needs to be said.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[genoyamamoto 0]

Evolution and intelligent design can both be correct simultaneously. Similar to how the computer scientists created a simulation, one can imagine an entity that created a universe with some initial condition and interaction forces and let this universe evolve.

In some ways it's funny that he cites the evolving program as strong evidence for evolution. The program, afterall, was written by intelligent designers to specifically study evolution. In a sense he is correct that the program supports the evolution of complexity. It does not, however, support or rule out the intelligent design theory having designed the system to evolve complexity.

Gotta go... plaything needs to spank me
Feel the hate...
Photos here

[SpeedRacer 1]

first of all I agree that the "intelligent design" theory, although on the surface appears attractive, does not hold up scientifically.

as for this:

Quote

For this intelligent designer to create such a complex and perfect(?) universe, the intelligent designer would have to be pretty complex itself... So where did the intelligent designer come from?

It has always been interesting to me that a lot of people seem to need an answer for where WE came from, but are perfectly content not knowing where "God" came from. ("God just is," seems to be the common answer to that question.)

well, more specifically, those of us who believe in God would say that God doesn't come from anything else.

The principle that something has to come from something before it is only true in a temporal universe. But unlike everything else that we experience (we being temporal beings), God is non-temporal.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Evolution and intelligent design can both be correct simultaneously. Similar to how the computer scientists created a simulation, one can imagine an entity that created a universe with some initial condition and interaction forces and let this universe evolve.

In some ways it's funny that he cites the evolving program as strong evidence for evolution. The program, afterall, was written by intelligent designers to specifically study evolution. In a sense he is correct that the program supports the evolution of complexity. It does not, however, support or rule out the intelligent design theory having designed the system to evolve complexity.

That's not what the "Intelligent Design" proponents claim, however. If it were, they would not be trying to get evolution out of the curriculum, they would be incorporating it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jdfreefly 1]

Maybe you two can start a new group....

Intelligent Intelligent Design

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[genoyamamoto 0]

Yes its unfortunate that they are trying to remove evolution from the curriculum. Nevertheless in the end I think the theory most suited to the educational environment will survive.

Gotta go... plaything needs to spank me
Feel the hate...
Photos here

[nanook 1]

Quote

It has always been interesting to me that a lot of people seem to need an answer for where WE came from, but are perfectly content not knowing where "God" came from. ("God just is," seems to be the common answer to that question.)

I'm kind of wondering if they are afraid of where "God" might come from. There is a theory floating around that his originations come from Desert Nomads as a Fertility deity, one of several of their gods. Fertility is very important in the Desert environment therefore might be a reason He became the dominant and finally the only god. I forgot where I heard it from. Been many years.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[philh 0]

The concept of intelligent design(ID) is just the old god of the gaps ressurected. Whenever there is a gap in our knowledge theists try and jump in and say" ah must be god". When mankind had a gap in its knowledge as to where lightining came from theists of course concluded sure enough god was the explanation. But oh dear a better explanation finally arrived. Whenever this process occurs theists will jump to another gap in our knowledge and claim that god must fill that gap. But making up a imaginary friend doesn't explain anything.

In the case of the fine tuning argument the whole proposition of ID falls apart on any close scrutiny. The idea the fundamental constants are fine tuned to create us is nonsensical. Firstly in order to say that the the fact the values of the fundamental constants of nature are suprisingly tuned to create life we have to know what other possible values they might have taken. But we have no idea how these constants get their values so we cannot say that the values they have are unlikely. If we get dealt an ace of spades in a pack of cards we have to know the pack was made of 52 different cards before we can say that the ace of spades was unlikley. If there was simply 51 other ace of spades it wouldnt be so unlikely would it? For the fundamental constants of nature we have no idea how many cards there are in the pack let alone what value they have. So we cannot say anyhting about the likelihood of them taking on the values they have.

But lets suppose we agree it is unlikley for the universe to produce life. There are two possibilities 1) the universe will continue expanding forever or 2) it will contract and end in a big cruucnch. In the 2nd case the universe could start again ad infinitum and we would be bound to be born in the universe with conditions that suit us. in the first case the universe will eventually expand so that all life will die. The suns will run out of their nuclear fuel and every planet will be too far from its sun even if they didnt. The life of the universe will be infinite but the proportion of time that it supported life will be infinitisemly small, statisticaally we might as well say that life in the universe was a momentary blip, if that. This hardly backs the claim it was intellignelty designed with us in mind.

Lastly there is no observational evidence for ID at all. There are however rival theories. In quantum mechanics(something whcih has more evdiece to suport it than most theories of just about anything) there is the hypothhesis that that the universe is part of a larger mutliverse which would automatically explain any fine tuning problem. As long as there at east one other explantion there is no reason to conclude in favour of ID. But as I hope I have shown there is no problem to even explain.

[diverborg 0]

This article is too big so I didn't read the whole thing, but if this is a free country, then we should be able to hear all arguments in school and choose what we want to believe. That is what school is about right, hearing all sides of topics. The mention of intelligent design does not have to be associated with any particular religion. I've heard many good "scientific" arguments supporting intelligent design, that aren't allowed in school because they are viewed religious. This is ridiculous. Atheism is nothing more than its own religion of no higher power than oneself and everything is responsible for it's own existence. The ACLU wants to filter out any arguments opposing the evolutionary theory, can we say double standard. If this evolutionary theory is perfect, than allow both sides of the argument and let the students decide what they want to believe. Don't choose for them, that's just pathetic.

[diverborg 0]

It has always been interesting to me that a lot of people seem to need an answer for where WE came from, but are perfectly content not knowing where "God" came from.

Quote

So where did the dense ball of matter that caused the big bang come from?

• Quote

[SpeedRacer 1]

(For the record, yes I believe in the theory of evolution & the theory of the Big Bang)
What's really stupid about the whole debate is that some people assume that if scientifically-describable events are present, then God must be absent.

And both sides are guilty of this same stupidity. They don't even stop to question it.
-

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

It has always been interesting to me that a lot of people seem to need an answer for where WE came from, but are perfectly content not knowing where "God" came from.

Quote

So where did the dense ball of matter that caused the big bang come from?

From the supernova and ollapse of the previous universe.

duh.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

• Quote

[diverborg 0]

I'm sorry, where did I get off on asking such a dumb question. That's a perfect answer that I have no refute for.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

It has always been interesting to me that a lot of people seem to need an answer for where WE came from, but are perfectly content not knowing where "God" came from.

Quote

So where did the dense ball of matter that caused the big bang come from?

I'm surprised that no one asked me that right away. (After I posted that, I realized I was setting myself up for that question.) It's a good point, and one that I have no answer for. Even if we could prove the big bang theory and find out where the matter came from, there will always be a question of where "what came before it" came from, and so on and so on.... It is an infinite question really.

I suppose I am content with not having an answer. But it makes more sense to me to approach the question scientifically rather than accepting the illogical (IMO) answer that if we are so complex then we must have been designed by a much more intelligent being (end of story, without any proof that this being exists or questioning where this being came from).

Personally, I don't devote much time to philosophizing about where we came from because it seems pointless (to me). I don't believe in souls or in life after death, so I would rather devote my time to enjoying life and learning how to make my life better while I'm here.

I didn't mean to insult anyone who does believe the intelligent design theory. They have just as much right to their beliefs as I do to mine, and I don't think any theories of existence are provable. I was just saying that I don't understand how that can be accepted as an answer, and perhaps they feel the same in not understanding how I can accept having no answer. I think we are all basing our beliefs on a "gut feeling" more than anything else.

And really what it comes down to is... Whatever helps you to get through this life (without harming anyone else) is alright by me.

• Quote

[diverborg 0]

No offense was taken, but I wouldn't call intelligent design an illogical theory. Most people do have interest in their origin regardless of what they believe. I just don't understand why the theory of intelligent design has to be classified as religious BS and thrown out immediately. Seems to me that half of the argument is trying to be hidden, perhaps just to try and convince more people into believing the evolutionary theory.

Quote

I'm surprised that no one asked me that right away. (After I posted that, I realized I was setting myself up for that question.) It's a good point, and one that I have no answer for. Even if we could prove the big bang theory and find out where the matter came from, there will always be a question of where "what came before it" came from, and so on and so on.... It is an infinite question really.

Our minds will only comprehend finite things. We can not understand that something came from nothing. That is why this question will never have answer regardless of which side you look at it. This is also why I believe there is an infinite realm (eternity, heaven, hell, or whatever you want) that we'll never comprehend.

[wmw999 2,560]

Quote

I just don't understand why the theory of intelligent design has to be classified as religious BS and thrown out immediately

The theory of intelligent design adds an assumption that some folks feel is not necessary. And, in fact, that assumption makes it easy to lead to the suppression of questions (e.g. "how did x/y/z happen? The 'intelligent designer' said so. Question settled, no need to keep looking into it").

It's an explanation that helps some folks with the holes. But it's not an essential part of a theory to explain a process, and a theory to explain a process should properly only include that which is necessary.

By the way -- not thinking that it should be taught does not mean that one doesn't believe in God. It might just mean that one doesn't think that an extra item should be tossed into a theory that stands without it.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Seems to me that half of the argument is trying to be hidden, perhaps just to try and convince more people into believing the evolutionary theory.

What part of the argument is being hidden?

[diverborg 0]

I'm talking about two different theories here. If you can teach one, you can teach the other. The evolutionary theory does the same thing by filling in it's holes with huge assumptions. Research should be taken for what it is and see where the evidence points. We should not assume evolution is the only correct theory and make our research so it only supports this theory.

Quote

The theory of intelligent design adds an assumption that some folks feel is not necessary. And, in fact, that assumption makes it easy to lead to the suppression of questions (e.g. "how did x/y/z happen? The 'intelligent designer' said so. Question settled, no need to keep looking into it").

By reading this statement I'm going to assume that you haven't ever researched the science behind the intelligent design theory. It's not about filling in holes by assumptions that God did everything. However, evolutionary theory is a perfect example of this. Here we have some of the biggest holes any theory ever written has, but somehow scientists won't even question it, but assume it's truth with little or no scientific backing. Evolution at it's core is a theory based on nothing but assumptions.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

What part of the argument is being hidden?

The whole argument that the evolutionary theory is flawed, or that there even is another legitimate theory.
I grew up with evolution being taught as the only theory in schools, and it was actually taught more as a fact than theory. I had to do my own research to view any arguments that opposed it because this was forbidden from being taught in the curriculum.
All I'm trying to say is that education is all about looking at all possible sides issue and making an educated decision. Here, students are only given one side. Liberals are all about open-mindedness, so now's the time to for them to open their mind.

[philh 0]

Most people object to Id being taught in science classes. I have no problem with religious beliefs being taught as part of religious education classes but they are not science and hence should not be in science classes. Science is something which can be tested and possibly refuted, it is open to examination and modification. None of this is true with ID. ID has as much place in a science class as flat earth views.
Evolution is a fact as much as anything in science is. It is not a theory. Natural selection which is Darwins explanation for the fact of evolution is a theory , perhaps people have the two confused.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Evolution is a fact as much as anything in science is. It is not a theory. Natural selection which is Darwins explanation for the fact of evolution is a theory , perhaps people have the two confused.

I thought for something to be a fact, it had to be proven. I actually learned that in science class. I don't remember all the stages but once a theory is proven than it is accepted as a fact in the science community. The word law may also be substituted for the word fact.
If you're going to call evolution a fact, I'm sure you would have quite a few scientists on both sides of the spectrum arguing that one.

[jakee 1,571]

Quote

Here we have some of the biggest holes any theory ever written has, but somehow scientists won't even question it, but assume it's truth with little or no scientific backing. Evolution at it's core is a theory based on nothing but assumptions.

And mountains of evidence. Nothing but assumptions and mountains of evidence. Perhaps you could point me to some specific 'big holes' in evolutionary theory, but remember, gaps in the fossil record do not equal gaps in the theory.

Quote

All I'm trying to say is that education is all about looking at all possible sides issue and making an educated decision. Here, students are only given one side. Liberals are all about open-mindedness, so now's the time to for them to open their mind.

No, primarily education is about teaching students things that are, otherwise we'd never pass knowledge along through the generations. Ya don't give a kid marks in an exam if he writes 2+2=5. Even if that is what he decided with his own mind, its still wrong.

Evolutionary theory is on of the most heavily researched areas of science, and is getting stroinger all the time. Basically, evolution just is. You'd be lucky if you found one article published in a journal each year in favour of ID.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[diverborg 0]

Quote

but remember, gaps in the fossil record do not equal gaps in the theory.

where do we get the evidence then?

Quote

Ya don't give a kid marks in an exam if he writes 2+2=5. Even if that is what he decided with his own mind, its still wrong.

This is a ridiculous analogy, and is not what I'm arguing.

Quote

Evolutionary theory is on of the most heavily researched areas of science, and is getting stroinger all the time. Basically, evolution just is. You'd be lucky if you found one article published in a journal each year in favour of ID.

Duh, why would an evolutionist try to support ID. There are plenty of sources out there (non-religious) that do though.

I could start arguing science, but that would take way to much of my time, and neither of our minds are going to change anyway. I'm leaving for boogie now. Cya