What do you think? — Paulm12

Intelligent Design is religion.

The most common objection to ID seems to be that it does not produce any testable hypothesis, and thus is “outside” of science (thus perhaps it would better be argued in a philosophy class). However, what bothers me about this is if science must be testable, then much of cosmology would also be considered inappropriate for a science classroom (no multiverses, no accounts for natural laws-all those would similarly be outside of science and therefore not belong in a science classroom either). — Paulm12

Much speculative physics and cosmology would indeed fall under that heading, as you say.

I've read a bit about Intelligent Design theorists. The problem is that it is a highly culturally and politically charged debate, due to the antagonism between aggressive fundamentalism and equally aggressive secular philosophers. I'm thinking on the one side of mainly Protestant, mainly American, fundamentalists, who cling to a literalistic view of the Bible. On the other side, you have the aggressive neo-darwinian attitude (typified by Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) which is implacably hostile to any form of religion and tries to enlist science as a weapon in that battle.

My view is that fundamentalists obviously have a pre-committment to their particular beliefs, and will try and dispute indisputable evidence on the basis of tendentious interpretations. In it crudest form, it will even deny that, for instance, radio-carbon dating is accurate. Of course, many of the more "sophisticated" ID theorists won't attempt that, and will try to accomodate all of the evidence. But the question then becomes, what are they trying to prove? What actually is at issue? What does 'created by God' actually mean, or look like?

I think it's the case that none of the major Christian denominations (Orthodox, Anglican and Catholic) have ever seriously questioned the theory of evolution on doctrinal grounds. For instance, there are forms of Biblical religion that are compatible with acceptance of evolutionary theory, such as theistic evolution theory. This accepts the scientific account, but says that natural processes are ultimately set in motion by God (or a higher intelligence). Francis Collins, and the Biologos Foundation, advocates this approach (see here for instance. This article is from a Christian philosopher and scientist taking issue with the best-known advocate of 'scientific' intelligent design.)

I don't personally accept the standard 'neo-darwinian' account and it's associated materialism, or any form of Biblical creationism, but I think there's huge scope for alternatives that don't fall into either camp. See for instance https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

Cite a single unique, repeatable, prediction "ID" makes.

Cite a single unique, repeatable, prediction "ID" makes — 180 Proof

The only thing the gods have intelligently designed, in a long collective effort that many drove to despair, but which unexpectedly took a glorious turn (due to a foolish philosopher god and lazy sloth animal god) and resulted in the (almost...) perfect elementary stuff for an eternally repeating material universe to appear. It took a long time to design that right stuff. A suitable quantum vacuum, with the right particles and the right coupling constants, and right divine charges, was eventually approved for creation by the wise delphin gods. And when the word was spoken, FLASH!, there it was. The rest is history. And future, fir that matter.

I think there’s simply not enough time in life to waste rehashing long-refuted nonsense.

Anyone who wants to engage with it just hasn’t read enough yet.

Intelligent Design - A Valid Scientific Theory? — Paulm12

No.

:100:

:rofl:

I think there’s simply not enough time in life to waste rehashing long-refuted nonsense. — Xtrix

From what I understand, intelligent design isn't considered a scientific theory because it can't be refuted.

Intelligent Design - A Valid Scientific Theory?
— Paulm12


No. — Banno

Yes. It depends on the theology used.



As expected... :lol:

From what I understand, intelligent design isn't considered a scientific theory because it can't be refuted. — T Clark

And the big bang can be refuted? Why should science be refutable? What if you just know the truth?

Thank you, I really appreciate your insight. I agree with what you’re saying about the militant neo-darwinians like Harris, Dawkins, etc. To me, their view is quasi religious or at least fundamentalist in a similar way to the biblical literalists. Unfortunately, it seems both extreme sides tend to get a majority of the attention in media, public debate, etc. It begs the question why (at least to me) there is an implied assertion that “religious views are irreconcilable with science.” Biblical literalism, sure. But arguing that science and biblical literalism are in conflict does not mean (mainstream) religious views are irreconcilable with science.

From what I understand, intelligent design isn't considered a scientific theory because it can't be refuted.

This was my thought too. But along with saying

Why should science be refutable?

We arrive with an issue at how to define “science.” If science only concerns itself with making testable hypothesis, then plenty of theories put forth by scientists are not “science.” I tend to think this more restrictive definition of science is a good thing for the field, because it forces theories to undergo tests-everything else is philosophy. The issue here is that “science” is a loaded word, and plenty of people take that to mean “knowledge” or even “truth.”

If we relegate only empirically verifiable things to science, then we also need to acknowledge that any attempts to extrapolate these studies to what happened in the past involves (by this definition, non-scientific) justification. And as a result, we further must admit that the best explanation for data may indeed be a non-scientific, non-testable one. Perhaps this is what we should be teaching children about science-it’s a reliable way of understanding the natural world for these reasons, but by construction will exclude possible explanations that could be the most philosophically justified. And at first glance, this feels somehow “wrong” to me because I want science to “be” this way we arrive at truth.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like duck, it must be...a duck!

Cite a single unique, repeatable, prediction "ID" makes. — 180 Proof

Great question! As always, you have grokked the heart of the issue.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like duck, it must be...a duck — Agent Smith

Or uncle Tom dressed like a duck, quacking like a duck, and swimming like a duck! It gets difficult when it comes to flying away though... :smile:

:snicker:

Wolf in sheep's clothing!

But arguing that science and biblical literalism are in conflict does not mean (mainstream) religious views are irreconcilable with science. — Paulm12

Agree. And also that dogmatic materialism and religious fundamentalism are kind of mirror images - not in terms of content but attitude.

If we relegate only empirically verifiable things to science, then we also need to acknowledge that any attempts to extrapolate these studies to what happened in the past involves (by this definition, non-scientific) justification. And as a result, we further must admit that the best explanation for data may indeed be a non-scientific, non-testable one. — Paulm12

I don't go along with that. As far as fossil evidence is concerned, there is abundant fossil evidence to validate in broad outlines evolutionary history. Sure there are big gaps and unknowns but there's also a lot of solid data. But the facts of evolutionary history are one thing, but the meaning of it is another. I think there's a lot of misuse of evolutionary biology as a kind of catch-all explanation for everything about human life, beyond what the theory actually says.

If science only concerns itself with making testable hypothesis, then plenty of theories put forth by scientists are not “science.” — Paulm12

There's a lot of argument in the scientific community about speculative physics and cosmology and whether or not it really amounts to science. There's a powerful school of thought that at least some of this speculative physics is not science at all - I've got a book called Farewell to Reality by Jim Baggott, who's a science writer. There's been plenty of criticism of those tendencies. But human nature being what it is, it's inevitable that questions will get thrown up for which there can't be any answers.

I'm not at all convinced that our dating app :snicker: is doing its job properly. Carbon/radioactive dating apps, how foolproof are they?

What about Last Thursdayism?

Why should science be refutable? — Hillary

One of the things science is is a method for determining truth. One aspect of the scientific method is that explanations identified as possibly true, hypotheses, must be tested. If it can't be refuted, it can't be tested.

It gets difficult when it comes to flying away though... — Hillary

Or hunting season, I imagine.

If science only concerns itself with making testable hypothesis, then plenty of theories put forth by scientists are not “science.” — Paulm12

I don't think that's true. There are a couple of candidates I can think of - the quantum multiverse comes to mind. The cosmic inflation multiverse might be another, but people are starting to try to find evidence for that in the cosmic microwave background. String theory is another, but people are currently looking for evidence at CERN.

Thomas Malthus, eugenics, are alive and kicking... :scream:

eugenics — Hillary

Eugenics is not science. It's engineering, i.e. using science to implement actions.

Eugenics is not science. It's engineering, i.e. using science to implement actions. — T Clark

The genetics is very real. Not falsified. Then there is the unproven central dogma in biology.

The genetics is very real. Not falsified. Then there is the unproven central dogma in biology. — Hillary

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' — Stephen Jay Gould

In science, 'fact' can only mean — Stephen Jay Gould

If this is claimed, I already smell something... Why is it bad to be sure of what you hold to be there? Is it false humility?

Why is it bad to be sure of what you hold to be there? — Hillary

Nothing wrong with it, but if it can't be tested, it ain't science. It's something else.

Nothing wrong with it, but if it can't be tested, it ain't science. It's something else. — T Clark

But you can test if it is true and confirm it.

but if it can't be tested — T Clark

Of course. But you can test to confirm also.

Someone sounds like Vicky Pollard.

Who that then? Mr. Clark? Nu nu, cant be. Mr. Clark said that I said that he said I might be raight actually. I like sushi but mi mouth cant take too hot. Though Robbie from first will deny that.