# Evolution, and Intelligent design. What comes in third? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 18, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173 "2005-12-18T15:41:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Pietro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@Pietro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pietro)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/41 "2005-12-19T03:21:21Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > You continue to betray an ignorance of the nature of science. Whereas I think you betray an ignorance of the nature of philosophy. > [@lissener](#): > > Imagining a non-disprovable philosophical conundrum does not invalidate the whole of science, as you seem to conclude. You’ve got me way wrong. Lemme see if I can explain below. > [@lissener](#): > > If you have ONE piece of overwhelmingly conclusive evidence, then no amount of inconclusive evidence–an ill fitting glove; a complex organic mechanism–has any contradictory effect on the validity of the conclusive piece whatsoever. Okay, here’s what I think you’re saying I’m saying is the position of ID proponents: “nature is too complex not to have been intelligently designed; therefore evolution is wrong.” Okay, so, to be fair, a lot of (stupid) ID proponents really do think something like that. But the position for which I’m being an apologist here is more like “nature is too complex not to have been intelligently designed; therefore evolution doesn’t fully explain it, and I’m skeptical about evolutionists’ claim that the process of evolution is truly random.” The whole point here is that these people are after answers that science can’t give them. The dumb ones will therefore reject the answers science is giving them (to different questions, obviously) and for them I got no sympathy. But the smart ones will say “okay, fine, you’ve shown me how it’s possible for a gene mutation to result in a fitter organism and how natural selection might lead to the propagation of that organism and etc…, but that still doesn’t fully explain it for me; I still think there’s something more at work somewhere.” What about that makes no sense, period, as opposed to simply making no sense to you? Do you get the distinction? > [@lissener](#): > > The point being that, the fact that you can imagine a complex mechanism that has not yet been explained, has no probative value whatsoever in relation to the other mechanisms that HAVE been explained. For you they’ve been explained well enough. Others, even some who fully accept the same scientific results, are still not satisfied. > [@lissener](#): > > Again, your contention that MY inability to prove that “there was no intelligence at work in creating the world as we experience it” in any way suggests–let alone proves–that “then it must be reasonable to believe it was so,” is just not how science works. No, but it is how philosophy works. What is your basis for thinking it’s unreasonable to believe in God, the Clockmaker or whatever you want to call it? What’s unreasonable is to let that belief blind you to the demonstrable facts. ---
**Author:** ![Citizen\_Bob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@Citizen\_Bob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Citizen_Bob)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/42 "2005-12-19T03:44:56Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You also have the guided-evolution faction, those that accept evolution in its entirety but believe that mutation is not random and selection is not natural but that both are guided by God. Any disagreement you might have with that is theological only; they embrace fact as completely as anyone else. This one is similar to what I have run into in the distant past, as a suggestion (to some direct questions I had) from some catholic contemplative/teaching monks I was learning from (all with multiple PhD’s - Cistercian Order types). The description I was given sees the biblical account of Genesis as a God-approximation translated into loose human words (somewhat Parabolic). While evolution is the 4D, internal description that also seems to fit well in the limited, but ordered mind of thinking people - having nothing to do with “why”, but more of “how” from a perspective within the confines of universal limitations and rules. “What is a God-day anyway?” and “What about evolution?” I think were my child-like questions that evolved such answers. I found the explanation quite comforting for years. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/43 "2005-12-19T03:49:17Z")
> [@Pietro](#): > > No, but it is how philosophy works. What is your basis for thinking it’s unreasonable to believe in God, the Clockmaker or whatever you want to call it? What’s unreasonable is to let that belief blind you to the demonstrable facts. But ID is not being sold as a philosophy; it’s being sold as science. ---
**Author:** ![Pietro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@Pietro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pietro)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/44 "2005-12-19T04:30:15Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > But ID is not being sold as a philosophy; it’s being sold as science. Yeah, I understand that, and I think if you look back through this thread I’ve been pretty consistent in sticking up for the philosophy behind it while decrying the selling of it as science. ---
**Author:** ![Wake\_up\_call](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/dec6dc/32.png) [@Wake\_up\_call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wake_up_call)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/45 "2005-12-19T04:37:28Z")
> [@Pietro](#): > > The ideas behind ID are philosophy, and they aren’t even crackpot or outdated ideas. It’s not a startling, or stupid, idea. Just as you can [call fascism: Democracy](http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/classics/story/0,6000,1669276,00.html), you can also call stupidity: Intelligence. Note that the words “Fascism”, “Stupidity”, “Democracy” and “Intelligence” were defined by human beings. They were not defined/designed by some higher power. Even if you dismiss the “words” as mere representation of “the concepts behind the words”, those very concepts were also defined/designed by human beings. So, what makes you “think” there is a higher power beyond humans’ ability to define/design those words concepts and ideas? Please put your finger on exactly what makes you “think” that. ---
**Author:** ![Agnostic\_Pagan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c4cdca/32.png) [@Agnostic\_Pagan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agnostic_Pagan)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/46 "2005-12-19T04:53:00Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Pastafarianism I knew someone would post that, but not so quickly. 🙂 But back to the OP, I have had the same question. The Creationism v Darwinism appears to be only in the US, but as other have pointed out, most of the world still remains fairly illiterate with minimal schooling. What is the consensus of India and China, of Kenya and Brazil? What do they teach in their schools? And at what level? Does anyone know this? Also from my understanding, Buddhism tends to accept scientific reasoning, though that may only be in Western Buddhism. Unfortunately I do not how they view it in Thailand or Sri Lanka. Buddhism also tends to view science as only a small part of wisdom, and not necessarily the important part - similar to Hinduism as **even sven** showed. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/47 "2005-12-19T05:29:16Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > But ID is not being sold as a philosophy; it’s being sold as science. Behe tries to sell it as science. Johnson uses it as a philosophical club to attempt to beat science, itself, into a different shape. Dembski just uses it to hide from his own insecurities. (ID would be easier to discuss if the various proponenets could even agree to what they are asserting.) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/48 "2005-12-19T07:49:18Z")
> [@Pietro](#): > > Well, I’m not aware of any creationists who have tried to approach it as a matter of science. Say rather that it’s apparently scientifically falsified myth/faith/religion. 250 years ago creationism was at the forefront of science. Scientists in those days, given evidence of the age of the earth and later fossil evidence, determined that it was wrong. In this they showed a lot more honesty than either creationists or IDers do today. Is your idea of the philosophical justification for ID that IDers can keep repeating “I’m not convinced?” The real problem with ID is that it has not shown there are any holes the designer has to fill. Any why has nothing to with it. Theistic evolution works fine on the why part while being identical to normal evolution on the how part - since evolution does not address the why part at all. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/49 "2005-12-19T08:21:44Z")
> [@Pietro](#): > > Okay, so, to be fair, a lot of (stupid) ID proponents really do think something like that. But the position for which I’m being an apologist here is more like “nature is too complex not to have been intelligently designed; therefore evolution doesn’t fully explain it, and I’m skeptical about evolutionists’ claim that the process of evolution is truly random.” Then where did the designer come from ? Creationism in any form doesn’t explain origins; it just pushes them back a step and says we shouldn’t think about it. Not only does it lack evidence, ID explains nothing and predicts nothing; it’s quite useless. > [@Pietro](#): > > But the smart ones will say “okay, fine, you’ve shown me how it’s possible for a gene mutation to result in a fitter organism and how natural selection might lead to the propagation of that organism and etc…, but that still doesn’t fully explain it for me; I still think there’s something more at work somewhere.” What about that makes no sense, period, as opposed to simply making no sense to you? Do you get the distinction? Because there’s no evidence for it, and you don’t get to claim to be scientific if there’s no evidence. Because it’s not falsifiable, and that is unscientific as well. > [@Pietro](#): > > No, but it is how philosophy works. What is your basis for thinking it’s unreasonable to believe in God, the Clockmaker or whatever you want to call it? Because there’s no evidence. At best, it’s an empty belief that accomplishes nothing. Since it cannot be related to the real world without evidence, it’s _empty_ philosophy, rather like solipsism. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/50 "2005-12-19T09:02:55Z")
> [@Pietro](#): > > Dude, that’s what philosophy _is_. Dude, no it isn’t. At least by any reasonable definition, philosophy is a bit more than just _making stuff up_. If it’s any clearer, I’ll say that ID is not and _cannot be_ science and insofar as it is philosophy _of some sort or other_, it is vacuous and contrary, since it isn’t really interested in gaining wisdom or knowledge, or pursuing truth by any means. It is (at least the ‘mainstream’ ID of Behe, Dembski, etc) a system of denial, avoidance and obfuscation. In many ways the _opposite_ of philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/51 "2005-12-19T10:33:47Z")
I’m wondering if \*\* Pietro \*\* and the others are debatting of the same thing. Pietro seems to refer to the general concept that evolutin could have been guided by god in some way or another (which is indeed not a scientific issue) while the other posters seem to discuss the theory currently called ID in the USA, which is way more specific, makes precise claims and pretends to be scientific. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/52 "2005-12-19T11:02:05Z")
In third place, I nominate [vitalism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism). Again, like ID/creationism, it is more of a _denial_ of the scientific paradigm. However, it is not theistic _per se_, just outdated dualistic laziness. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/53 "2005-12-19T15:34:55Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > If you are talking about what people believe, you might get 1) Creationism, 2) Evolution, 3) ID. I’d be surprised if ID wasn’t a distant 3rd; it’s only being used in the US to combat evolution in the education system. Eh? I understand many Muslims and Hindus have problems with evolution, or at least with straight neo-Darwinism without a chaser. I would be very surprised if there were no one other than Christians in the U.S.A. who had taken up the cudgels on behalf of I.D. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/54 "2005-12-19T15:45:01Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Eh? I understand many Muslims and Hindus have problems with evolution, or at least with straight neo-Darwinism without a chaser. I would be very surprised if there were no one other than Christians in the U.S.A. who had taken up the cudgels on behalf of I.D. But there’s no need to choose ID over Creationism unless your goal is to get it taught in science classes. Since AFAIK there is no great effort by Muslims and Hindus to get ID slipped into science class there is no benefit to going the whole ID route. The _only_ advantage of ID over Creationism is that you can try to fool people into belieiving that it’s a scientific theory, which it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Pietro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@Pietro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pietro)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/55 "2005-12-19T16:15:23Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > > [@Pietro](#): > > > > Dude, [making stuff up]'s what philosophy is. > > Dude, no it isn’t. At least by any reasonable definition, philosophy is a bit more than just _making stuff up_. Obviously I was being a little flippant, although really, where else but their own minds do philosophers get their ideas? > [@Mangetout](#): > > If it’s any clearer, I’ll say that ID is not and _cannot be_ science and insofar as it is philosophy _of some sort or other_, it is vacuous and contrary, since it isn’t really interested in gaining wisdom or knowledge, or pursuing truth by any means. It is (at least the ‘mainstream’ ID of Behe, Dembski, etc) a system of denial, avoidance and obfuscation. In many ways the _opposite_ of philosophy. I’m gonna go ahead and fess up to not actually knowing with any precision what these guys have written/said. But the main idea they clearly have in common is some form of the teleological argument - nature is too complex/beautiful/etc. to not be designed. This fits squarely within the mainstream of western philosophy. It’s not vacuous, and it doesn’t represent a disinterest in the search for truth. If you are convinced the truth is X, the fact that X is not scientifically verifiable doesn’t make X a cop-out. I’ll say again that I am firmly on board with the opposition to the movement which is trying to get ID taught as scientific theory in our nation’s high schools. In science classes, theories pretty much get taught as fact, and it’s therefore pretty clear that the ID movement is seeking to indoctrinate kids. If, however, there was an established primary school philosophy curriculum, it would be a no-brainer that kids would at some point read some version of the theory of intelligent design (noncapitalization intended.) And I don’t think that would be a bad thing as long as the teachers understood the distinction between “accepted scientific theory” and “untestable philosophical theory.” ---
**Author:** ![Pietro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@Pietro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pietro)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/56 "2005-12-19T16:27:41Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Then where did the designer come from ? Creationism in any form doesn’t explain origins; it just pushes them back a step and says we shouldn’t think about it. In this respect evolutionary theory and purely scientific cosmology do no better and arguably do worse, depending on what you’re interested in. They strive to push our understanding of origins back incrementally through several steps investigating the “how,” but don’t even want to think about the “why.” > [@Der Trihs](#): > > Because there’s no evidence. At best, it’s an empty belief that accomplishes nothing. Since it cannot be related to the real world without evidence, it’s _empty_ philosophy, rather like solipsism. Your entire reply betrays the attitude “if it isn’t scientific, it’s worthless.” That’s fine for you, but why can’t you let others judge for themselves? It seems to me that to you, all religion and most if not all philosophy consists of “empty belief[s] that accomplish nothing.” Religious people disagree, as do philosophers. You should let them, and instead of decrying their beliefs and ideas, you should worry about keeping them from teaching your kids that their beliefs and ideas are Facts. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/57 "2005-12-19T16:28:52Z")
> [@Pietro](#): > > Obviously I was being a little flippant, although really, where else but their own minds do philosophers get their ideas? Well, quite - in fact scientists have to do the same; scientists test their ideas by experiment and empirical observation, philosophers test their ideas by, I dunno, _pondering them deeply_. ID does neither; it just throws its hands up and says “this is too difficult to explain, so we should stop trying and just make up the answer”. Bad. > [@](#): > > I’m gonna go ahead and fess up to not actually knowing with any precision what these guys have written/said. But the main idea they clearly have in common is some form of the teleological argument - nature is too complex/beautiful/etc. to not be designed. This fits squarely within the mainstream of western philosophy. It’s not vacuous, and it doesn’t represent a disinterest in the search for truth. If you are convinced the truth is X, the fact that X is not scientifically verifiable doesn’t make X a cop-out. It does make it _unteachable_ though; there has to be _something_ to set it apart from potentially infinitely many other bits of fanciful nonsense. > [@](#): > > I’ll say again that I am firmly on board with the opposition to the movement which is trying to get ID taught as scientific theory in our nation’s high schools. In science classes, theories pretty much get taught as fact, and it’s therefore pretty clear that the ID movement is seeking to indoctrinate kids. If, however, there was an established primary school philosophy curriculum, it would be a no-brainer that kids would at some point read some version of the theory of intelligent design (noncapitalization intended.) And I don’t think that would be a bad thing as long as the teachers understood the distinction between “accepted scientific theory” and “untestable philosophical theory.” Oh, I think I agree; we briefly covered the phlogiston hypothesis in chemistry and geocentrism in physics; it was useful. I don’t think we’re talking about the same kind of ID though; the ID I’m talking about is a political movement, promoted almost exclusively by people or agencies with religious affiliation, aiming to have it taught ‘alongside’ evolution/mainstream cosmology, as if there is some kind of factual controversy in these disciplines. ---
**Author:** ![Pietro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@Pietro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pietro)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/58 "2005-12-19T16:30:41Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I don’t think we’re talking about the same kind of ID though; the ID I’m talking about is a political movement, promoted almost exclusively by people or agencies with religious affiliation, aiming to have it taught ‘alongside’ evolution/mainstream cosmology, as if there is some kind of factual controversy in these disciplines. If you have some time on your hands, I’d invite you to read all my posts in this thread. I think I’ve made it quite clear that I’m not defending that movement. ---
**Author:** ![Pietro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@Pietro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pietro)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/59 "2005-12-19T16:35:51Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > scientists test their ideas by experiment and empirical observation, philosophers test their ideas by, I dunno, _pondering them deeply_. ID does neither; it just throws its hands up and says “this is too difficult to explain, so we should stop trying and just make up the answer”. Bad. Or maybe the IDists \*have \*pondered it deeply rather than just stopped trying and made up the answer? I’m not saying I know for any given ID theorist which is the case, but clearly there are people out there who feel strongly about this. I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that at least some of them have done some deep pondering about the matter. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173/60 "2005-12-19T16:39:11Z")
> [@Pietro](#): > > In this respect evolutionary theory and purely scientific cosmology do no better and arguably do worse, depending on what you’re interested in. They strive to push our understanding of origins back incrementally through several steps investigating the “how,” but don’t even want to think about the “why.” I disagree, actually. “How” is _descriptive_, yes, and careful observation of the cosmos and fossil record are essential to answering “how”. But I believe that evolutionary fact/theory and cosmology _do_ answer “why” also. They [explain](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/) what we see, deeply and rigorously, to the extent that we understand the reasons for things _not being different_. For evolution, the continual process of copy-vary-select _must_ give rise to diversity and complexity. In cosmology, the could-it-be-_different_ answers are admittedly rather more [proto](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience)scientific, but are still deep _explanations_. Heck, even teleological elements of “why?” could be explained as inevitable anthropomorphising from our evolving brains. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-intelligent-design-what-comes-in-third/336173.md?page=4)