I explicitly said that intelligent designers generally do believe in God. They do not, however, claim that intelligent design PROVES that God exists. Do you see the difference yet?
No, they do not. Any implication is purely in your eyes. As I’ve said before (repeatedly!), they believe there is EVIDENCE for God’s existence, but they do not claim that this is PROVEN.
Of course, you keep ignoring this distinction. Even though they have NOT claimed that God’s existence has been scientifically proven, you keep saying “Well, that’s what they’re implying anyway.” You have done nothing to substantiate your claim, but of course, that won’t stop you from repeating it ad nauseum.
I think you’re in denial about a lot of things, but ultimately, your objection is irrelevant. We are discussing your specific claim – namely, that theists say God’s existence is scientifically proven. Whether ID is compelling or not is irrelevant to the veracity of your assertion.
That’s now what I said, though. As I explicitly said earlier, most of them DO believe that the Designer was God himself. However, they do not claim that this conclusion logically follows from intelligent design. In other words, they claim that there is scientific evidence of intelligent design – and while they may personally believe that the designer was God himself, they do not claim that this can be scientifically proven.
Consider the words of chemist and ID proponent Charles Thaxton: “The word ‘Designer’ doesn’t necessarily mean the God of Genesis… My view is that from the empirical data we have we cannot make affirmation of a deity. It is the possibility [of a deity] that we arrive at.” He further explains that it is a “generic design that we talk about in Intelligent Design. When people want to go beyond that, that’s where their particular views [about God] come in.”
In other words, they don’t believe that the intelligent designer was an alien, and they do believe it was God. However, they acknowledge that the principles of intelligent design do not PROVE that God was indeed the master designer.
Just to be clear, do you claim that IDers are not motivated by religion? That the textbook recommended in Dover before the court ruling didn’t have creationism scratched out and id written in? That the reason the IDers claim that the designer is not necessarily god is to keep ID remotely allowed under the First Amendment?
I doubt many theists would claim that god can be proven by any amount of evidence. No argument there. But if you are trying to say that ID (except for the Raelians who think space aliens are the designers) is not purely religiously motivated, you’re insulting our intelligence.
Not at all. I’m sure that most of them are. However, based on the writings that I’ve encountered, I think that most (if not all) of them genuinely believe that the scientific evidence does point to an intelligent designer.
I’m not familiar with the book in question, so I won’t comment on that matter.
I think that would be a very unfair assessment. They claim that it is not necessarily God because the evidence does not necessarily point to a God. It’s just that simple.
In fact, consider Nobel laureate Sir Francis Crick and his famous article, Directed Panspermia. Crick believed that there was evidence of intelligent design on Earth. However, instead of pointing to God as the source, he proposed that aliens had seeded the planet with life, thereby creating our ecosphere.
ID proponents recognize that their arguments may suggest the existence of a God, but that this does not automatically follow from the appearance of design. I think this is immediately evident, and so it simply isn’t necessary to postulate they they only propose this “to keep ID remotely allowed under the First Amendment.”
To clarify, I should say that I think most of them are motivated in part by religion. That is, they believe that science supports their (sometimes newfound) relgious views, and vice versa. In other words, whether these people are right or wrong, I think it would be unfair to say that they are motivaged solely by religious doctrine.
[QUOTE=Voyager But if you are trying to say that ID (except for the Raelians who think space aliens are the designers) is not purely religiously motivated, you’re insulting our intelligence.[/QUOTE]
The “space alien” notion demonstrates that one CAN see signs of intelligent design without believing in a God. For this reason, I think it is patently unfair to say that the ID proponents are motivated by religious doctrine and nothing more.
When I criticize my opponents, I try to be fair and balanced in my treatment of their worldview. If an atheist expresses any objections to the kalam cosmological argument, for example, I try to deal with such objections in an even-handed manner. I do not say, “You just don’t want to believe that there’s a God, that’s all!” especially without knowing the individual personally. It could be that this person is honestly mistaken, or perhaps not.
In my opinion, you are either really naive, or idealistic, or something…
Coffee Smelling Time: The entire reason ID is defended regularly is to attempt to reconcile the apparent ridiculousness of the concept of God with our ever increasing knowledge of the workings of nature, as well as increased access to education. As poverty and education goes down, so goes religious ferver. ID is a carefully crafted response to this natural trend.
In my judgment, you are not making an honest attempt to understand the positions of the people that you so enthusiastically lambaste.
Even if we grant the “apparent ridiculousness” aspect, this still doesn’t demonstrate that IDers claim God to be “scientifically proven” – nor does it prove that they are motivated solely by religious doctrine.
I don’t deny that ID is used as an argument for God’s existence. Heck, most IDers wouldn’t deny that. For reasons that have been repeatedly articulated to you though, this does not mean that ID is offered as “scientific proof” of God’s existence – nor does it mean that any of the other people that you ridiculed (creationists, Josh McDowell and the followers of Mary Baker Eddy) claim to have scientific proof thereof.
How many of them understand, even remotely, the scientific evidence? We have Behe, who is qualified. Dembski? Not clear. Johnson? No way. I’m sure there are a few others, like the guy who wrote the paper in the little Washington journal.
But look at the Dover situation. The effort to include ID, even in that small way, came right from churches. Really, if there was no religious motivation, why isn’t this issue limited to biology journals where it belongs? There are countless controversies like this in science, and no other has merited the attention of school boards or state boards of education.
If that’s what you want to believe, be my guest. I come from the big city myself.
One small difference - he never proposed that his hypothesis be taught in schools before there is any confirmation for it. Panspermia is kind of dead, since we’ve never found any beasties out there - but organic molecules raining on the early earth is reasonably well accepted. I rather think Crick would have backed away from the hypothesis given the lack of evidence.
You see, while evidence of a designer does not confirm god, lack of a designer refutes the kind of god these people believe in - but not all gods, of course.
Philosophers are so cute when they try to do science. Atheist philosophers definitely fall into this category too. Taylor and George O. Smith (who uses the same argument of a universe without a beginning) are clearly wrong - at least for our event horizon.
There are two issues with the argument (I’m not exactly sure how the kalam argument varies from the standard one.) First, there do seem to be events without causes. The quantum world does not follow the common sense of ours. No uncaused events is basically a premise, and I don’t think can be proved without either circular reasoning or hand waving.
Second, especially damaging to a Christian, is that it is impossible to connect the creator (if there is one) to any human god. One would hope that the god would at least get the story right in his communication to his people. Ours clearly did not. Perhaps there is a planet somewhere with a holy book that talks about the Big Bang in perfect and exact detail. On that planet, believers would have a very good argument. On ours, not so much. If you wish to use this argument to worship Snotgrass of Adebaran V, be my guest.
Well first, I do not believe that your understanding of the quantum realm is accurate. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics says that the outcome of quantum events is, to some extent, random. This does not mean that the outcome is uncaused, though. (Apart from that, I think you have missed some nuances in the kalam cosmological argument, but that would be straying even farther afield from this discussion.)
Or perhaps you are referring to spontaneous particle creations that emerge from oscillations in the so-called “quantum vacuum,” which many critics consider to be nothingness. That is a misinterpretation of the term though, for one cannot have oscillaitions in nothingness. As Danah Zohar said, “The quantum vacuum is very inappropriately named because it is not empty. Rather, it is the basic, fundamental, and underlying reality of which everything in this universe—including ourselves—is an expression…”
Only if you talk about having absolute or scientific proof. As I have said several times in the course of this discussions, there are very few theists who claim that God’s existence can be scientifically proven… nor can it be absolutely proven.
Theists do, however, consider a divine Creator to be the most plausible explanation. Again, this is a matter or philosophy, and extends beyond mere science.
Well first of all, a great many of them have doctorates in their respective scientific fields and accomplished careers. But even if they didn’t, the question isn’t whether their claims are accurate. Rather, the question is whether they are motivated solely by religious doctrine, and I think that would be a very tenuous position to defend.
Did I say that there was no religous motivation? Quite the contrary; I explicitly acknowledged that there was. This does not, however, prove that religion was their sole motivating factor.
Again, irrelevant for the purposes of our discussion. We are not talking about whether ID should be taught in schools or not. Rather, we are discussing your claim that ID proponents are “purely religiously motivated,” to use your specific term. By all indications, they are not.
By all indications? Huh? No, by all indications, ID is purely religiously motivated. It wouldnt be on anybody’s radar were it not DIRECTLY in support of the existence of God. Again, not “directly proving” rather attempting to imply…deceptively so.
That is to say, if you are not religious, JThunder, your apparent support for ID makes you part of an extremely miniscule minority.
I’m sure I have missed nuances, since your link discussed a particular (and incorrect) attack on it, while never describing the argument.
I am quite aware of the difference between a probability wave an an uncaused event. Statistically, for instance, we can tell the half life of a radioactive element, but we are unable to say when a particular atom will decay. What is the cause for that atom decaying?
I won’t argue about the name, but anyone who understands anything about this knows that space cannot be empty. That’s the whole point. Again, though, there is no known cause for a single event happening. Perhaps the very nature of uncertainty makes it physically impossible for there not to be a universe at some point.
You miss my point. First, no scientific proof is involved or implied.
If some divine creator made the universe, we need to understand his characteristics, and who he has talked to, if anyone. All the deities who have supposedly talked to us gave us creation stories, all of which have turned out to be incorrect. So, either the deity never actually gave us a creation story (why not?) or the deity who did was not the divine creator, and knew nothing of the real story. if a deity did give us the correct story, it would be very solid evidence that those who wrote that holy book had knowledge beyond that available to the people at the time. We have no such evidence - there is nothing in our Bible that could not have been written by people living 2700 years ago. Thus, the divine creator is not evidence of Christianity, and in fact is evidence against it, since Christianity got a very important piece of evidence wrong.
If a person testified to being at an event, and if photographs are discovered of the event showing that the person’s testimony was 100% wrong, don’t you think it is plausible that the person never was at the event, or was lying? Let’s face it, your god knows nothing about creation, so he is either lying (and is thus not god) or was not there, so was not the creator, or actually said nothing about it, which shows that there is no evidence that a creator god has anything to do with yours.
Have you seen the list? Very few - almost none, have degrees in relevant fields. I have a PhD, but you would be foolish to believe what I say about biology or evolution.
That there is near unanimity among real biologists that ID is bunk should be very telling.
First, would you accept primarily religiously motivated? It is obviously impossible to know if any of them have slight other reasons. Some seem to think that evolution makes us no more than animals morally - I would say this is a religious argument, but maybe not. I was going to find cites about religious motivation, but clearly none of them would prove exclusive motivation.
Still attacks on evolution have been religiously motivated from the beginning, and there is certainly no reason to think today’s attacks are any different. If all the IDers became atheists (or Unitarians, or reformed Jews) today, how long do you think the ID movement would last?
That’s because I was talking about criticisms of the kalam cosmological argument. If you want a more thorough discussion of the argument itself, I suggest the writings of William Lane Craig.
I personally don’t know, but that’s beside the point. The point is that this has not been established as a causeless event.
Which even exactly are you talking about?
That’s exatly what I’m saying. Most theists do NOT say that God has been scientifically proven. So why belabor this point?
First of all, I think that’s overstating the matter. If we find an alien artifact, we can identify it as having been designed without knowing who the aliens are or what they are like. (The question of “who he has talked to” is simply irrelevant.)
Moreover, one can (in principle) know things about the designer through other means – philosophical means, for example. Again, the Kalam cosmological argument provides examples thereof. But even if we didn’t, this would merely mean that we don’t fully understand the designer. It would not mean that no designer exists.
So you say. I happen to disagree.
First of all, I’d like to remind you that we are talking about theism in general. So even if you were correct, this would merely argue against Christianity. It would not prove your point regarding theism. If you want to debate Christianity, please move to another thread.
Moreover, your statement is predicated on your claim that your interpretation of the Creation story is accurate, and that this interpretation is at odds with the established facts. You have asserted that claim rather emphatically, but assertions are not evidence. Don’t expect that people will accept them at face value.
Again, that’s irrelevant to the topic at hand, for reasons discussed above.
Michael Behe – molecular biology professor
Dean Kenyon – Professor Emeritus of biology. Wrote a book proposing that proteins may exhibit self-organizing capabilities, but recanted that position years later when it was challenged by one of his graduate students.
Paul A Nelson – professor of biology
David Berlinski – postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology. Also holds a doctorate in philosophy.
Paul Chien – biology professor
William Dembski – mathematics professor. Applied mathematical principles to the concept of intelligent design (biological or otherwise)
Guillermo Gonzalez – astronomy professor. (This is applicable because ID also encompasses cosmological arguments, not just biological ones.)
Michael Newton Keas – Ph.D. in the history of science
Jonathan Wells – Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology
Raymond Bohlin – Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology
Walter Bradley – formerly Professor and Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Texas A&M University
Cornelius G. Hunter – Ph.D. in biophysics
Robert Kaita – Ph.D. in nuclear physics (again, applicable to cosmological arguments)
Scott Minnich – associate professor of microbiology
Henry F. Schaefer III – Ph.D. in chemical physics
Charles Thaxton – Ph.D. in physical chemistry
… and that’s just a small sampling. Regardless of whether they’re right or wrong, I think it’s a vast overstatement to say that “very few, almost none” of them have degrees in the relevant fields.
Again, that is irrelevant to the question of whether ID proponents are motivated purely by religion. At best, if the prevailing opinion is correct, it would merely show that IDers are mistaken.
In which case, you shouldn’t presume that their motivations are primarily due to religion, either. In fact, this is a false dichotomy, for it is entirely possible that they embraced their religious beliefs because they believe (erroneously or not) that the scientific evidence points that way.
And as I’ve said numerous times now, I do not deny that there is some religious motivation at play. Why do you insist on belaboring this point?
If faith is required to believe that the biblical creation story, wouldnt it merely increase the amount of faith required if all the physical evidence we have been able to observe appears to contradict it?
I believe that is the fundamental crux of Christianity, the distinction that has kept it going in spite of all the evidence against its premise. The more ridiculous it seems, the more faith you need to believe it, and more faith is thought to be a good thing.
Since proving it a causeless event would require proving an existential negative, I doubt we ever will. But that is not required. A premise of the cosmological argument is that all events have causes, and I have shown you an event that apparently does not have a cause. Thus it becomes plausible that there can be an uncaused event, and the argument fails.
Vacuums, but this is clearly an empty sidetrack, so never mind.
How does the cosmological argument have anything to do with scientific proof? It is a philosophical proof (or attempt at a proof) of a divine creator.
Remember I said any earth religion (except perhaps weak deism.) If any religion makes the claim that a cosmological argument supports its specific claims about god, then it must show a connection between our knowledge of the beginning of the universe and its creation story. If it cannot show such, its claim is no better than the claim of any other religion. The fallacy behind this is that if evidence for a god exists, it must support my god as opposed to their god. Pascal’s Wager fails for a similar reason.
I’m just assuming a fairly literal interpretation. If you say we can twist what is written to support any scientific discovery (all post hoc, of course) then no holy book can be relied on to tell us anything. If you are using a creation story to support a belief on such an important topic, one hopes that it is written to the standards any teacher would expect of a high school student.
So, I’m not sure if you are claiming that the Genesis story is correct and science is wrong, or that it can be interpreted to match scientific findings.
The biologists on your list would hardly make up the authorship list of one paper. If you remember, there was a project where only biologists of a single first name (Frank?) endorsed evolution, which over whelmed your list.
Let’s talk about this guy. I was friends with a Robert Kaita in Junior High and High School. From the picture it could be him, but I couldn’t find a bio. He was the only one of the four of us in my high school who applied to MIT who got rejected. The ID stuff says he is at Princeton, which is literally true, but actually he works in the Plasma Physics Lab, and is thus not really on the Princton faculty. I happen to have known lots of PPL people when I lived in Princteon, and he knows no more about evolution than I do from his background. The kinds of things they do is well removed from cosmology. I couldn’t find his job - he is not on the org chart, so he is not a high level guy like my friends.
I hope it’s not the same guy - he was rational when I knew him.
You should check out the Wedge papers some day. Their motivations are very clear. Their lack of scientific motivation is just as clear.
