I think you’re confusing Intelligent Design with Theistic Evolution.
Theistic Evolution holds that evolution, exactly the same as in the atheist’s mind, happened, but that God guided it. That is, its position on a Deity is independent of evolution – they believe God was a part of evolution for non-scientific reasons.
Intelligent Design holds that evolution, as the atheist imagines, could not have happened because things are too complex. The position of ID on a deity is dependent on evolution – that is, they believe a god was part of evolution because the science dictates such.
OK, that wasn’t a very good post before. I was pressed for time. Lunch hour was ending. Here’s the long answer:
First things first. Intelligent Design proponents are not creationists. We believe in evolution as fact. We do not believe in evolution the way it is currently taught. Currently, science is pervaded with a very nihilistic worldview that can be summed up as, “There is nothing beyond the physical, and no greater purpose to anything, and anyone who looks for such things is wasting their time.” Science seems to be evolving into a quasi-religion for hard atheists, but that’s a subject for another thread. Anyway, the theory of evolution has been coupled with the idea that the creation of life was a random, chance event. If you haven’t heard anyone speak on evolution recently, then you might well have missed this, but the two ideas are definitely linked nowadays. I chose my words poorly when I referred to this whole idea as “evolution,” but like I said I was rushing to get back to work and I didn’t have time to compose m thoughts properly. Sorry about that.
It is the nihilistic “life has no meaning” philosophy that Intelligent Design proponents object to. Unfortunately, there are some creationists who have kinda jumped on the ID bandwagon and call their beliefs “Intelligent Design.” I wish they’d stop.
Lastly, Intelligent Design is scientific. The central tenant of ID of is that life is too complex to arise spontaneously. This is a falsifiable theory. If someone was able to cause a bacteria cell to arise out of a vat of amino acids, with no “parent” organism involved, then Intelligent Design would be disproven. Presumably, these results could be independently duplicated, so therefore the theory is scientific.
How complex is too complex; could something half as complex as life arise spontaneously? Or a quarter as complex? How does one measure complexity anyway? And if one cannot measure complexity, how can one say that there is too much?
Or is it that no complexity can arise unguided? (that one is pretty easy to refute).
I don’t believe ID would just lie down and die; they’d be claiming that it proves ID, because the intelligent action of the people setting up the experiment somehow prejudiced the outcome.
Diceman, Richard Dawkins – who, from what I understand, is a bit of a specialist on the subject of evolution and whose interview it was that sparked this question – would disagree with your randomness postition.
I see what you’re saying, Diceman, but I just don’t agree. The idea that it’s too complex just seems moot (sp?) to me. Trying to find the words to explain why, however, is pretty difficult. It’s something along the lines of “It’s a universe, of course it’s complex” and “Looking back from where we are at where we came from and saying it’s complex isn’t what we should be doing. We should be starting from the beginning and saying, ‘Look at all the possibilities,’ then seeing which one results.”
Hope someone can help me out with that.
Furthermore, I’d still like to know if there’s any other countries out there talking about ID. The answers have started a debate, and I can’t control myself.
I believe you mean that Intelligent Design proponents are not necessarily creationists. You must admit that most ID proponents are creationists (that is, they believe the Christian/Jewish God created the Earth).
I don’t think you do. If something is too complex to have evolved, that’s contrary to the assertion that things evolve.
That is now an accurate quote.
Science deals with observation - if you can’t observe it and if you can’t let someone repeat your experiment, then it’s not science. Science is not the sole constitutent of truth - that is, all science must be true (we can observe it to verify), but not all truth is found in science (which is, of course, why we have philosophy, religion, etc).
Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. You are talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.
From a scientific standpoint, both creationism and Intelligent Design are equally invalid. Both rest on non-verifiable, non-observable claims. That isn’t to say they aren’t true – that means that they aren’t science.
Now, should a pastor preach a sermon on Intelligent Design, or should an imam promote creationism in his mosque, nobody is going to object – because a place of worship is not designed for learning science.
But in a science classroom setting, neither creationism nor ID has a place.
You are correct in saying that many scientists believe that things that cannot be observed cannot be true. And that is philosophy (that is, the claim cannot be verified - how can you verify that the observable is all that exists?). To claim that evidence for no God is as unscientific as to claim that there is evidence for God. Debate about unobservables is unscientific in any setting. If people choose to ignore all but that which is observable, then you can’t fault them any more than you can fault someone for choosing to believe in something unobservable.
Again, you talk about abiogenesis, which is not a prerequisite for evolution. Scientific evidence points towards common descent, whether the original “organism” was a self-replicating molecule, life transferred to Earth from another planet, or intentionally planted by a Higher Organism.
But to counter your point on abiogenesis, many people have created self replicating molecules (may need subscription to view).
Dammit, I hate it when I hijack threads. I really do. :smack:
If you’re going to put it that way, then pretty much all ID proponants, myself included, are creationists. But the people who we’re normally talking about when we use the word “creationist” are those who believe that the Book of Genesis is literally, historically accurate, and that the universe was created over a 7-day period about 10,000 years ago. People who believe that life evolved over millions of years are not “creationists” as the term is normally used, even though many of us do indeed credit God with our existance. (We believe that Genesis should be understood in a symbolic or alligorical manner, in case you’re wondering.)
So yes, I do believe in evolution. The difference is that most religious people see evolution as being guided by God, or some other external force, as opposed to being a series of random events.
That’s true in theory, but in practice there are many, many scientists for whom science == truth, and non-scientific concerns (philosophy, religion, morality) are pretty much irrelevant. I know or have known several people like this. Maybe I’ve just had a skewed sample, but they seem to be the majority of scientists.
As I said before, it often seems like science is overrun by a mindset that is quite hostile to spirituality. This has nothing to do with the Scientific Theory itself, but rather it is part of the “culture” that has built up around it. Whether this is true or not, the perception is very real and widespread.
Can I interrupt and ask what’s actually taught in an ID course that takes more than a couple of days? Hell, even evolution was only a few days in high school (I distinguish that from genetics and natural selection, which don’t enter into either “we’re an accident” or “we’re created”).
This would be theistic evolution, not Intelligent Design.
True, but I argue the main reason why this is happening is because of Christians, not scientists. (thread is now hijacked and halfway to Beirut, but I think it’s worth it. If the mods disagree, I’ll start a new thread)
The level of science knowledge in the Christian community is appallingly low. Christians are pulling their students out of biology class, ensuring that they will never learn the principles of evolution well enough to debate it. Christians, in general, can’t differentiate between evolution, abiogenesis, and Big Bang theory. Instead of speaking up for God in an intelligent, rational manner, they allow radicals such as Kent Hovind (a whole thread could be written about him) to speak for them.
It’s not surprising that a budding young scientist, when confronted with a choice between (a) believing what she can see, touch, and hear for herself, and (b) believing someone who is verifiably lying and claims to represent Christianity, will end up rejecting Christianity.
As a scientist, I can honestly say that I’ve met very few people who have any specific gripe with Christianity or even religion as a whole. But every time religion chooses to interfere with science – by legislating creationism into the classroom, by bringing lawsuits against science departments – the walls of separation are built one brick higher. It’s not scientists who breed the us-or-them mentality, it’s Christians. Not Joe Christian, but the people that Joe Christian won’t stand up to condemn.
I argue a majority of scientists (Christian or non-Christian) have had a negative encounter with an antagonistic Christian (i.e. one who wrongfully condemns science) while only a minority of Christians (scientists and non-scientists) have had a negative encounter with an antagonistic scientist (i.e. one who wrongfully condemns spirituality).
Interesting. My personal experiences are almost exactly opposite. Most Christians don’t have any specific problem with science. They just seem so hostile toward us.
I think we have an Israel-Palestine situation here. A handful of assholes on both sides are ruining it for everyone else.
As interesting as this hijack has been, I really hate to see a thread get dumped into The Forum Where No Argument Ever Reaches A Satisfactory Conclusion. I don’t suppose there’s any chance that someone could say something on-topic? Please?
In Australia we have a population largely apathetic about religious issues, with a tiny but growing minority of crusading born-again and fundamentalist christians. As they cannot win their argument by numbers of adherents or by facts, the latter are infiltrating schools and politics in order to force their world view on the majority, most of whom don’t know or care enough to resist.
Just a few weeks ago the Federal Education minister - shamefully, a qualified physician - said that ID should get equal time in science classes. So it seems he’s been got at. Fortunately school curricula are under state control not federal, but as most of the money comes from the feds I’m expecting them to start wielding the big stick very soon to force the issue.
In Australia, there is no movement to teach ID (or similiar) or to try to stop the teaching of evolution in schools. There is no real public debate on the topic, outside of perhaps a few members of the chattering classes (he says, looking at himself) speaking in an entirely theoretical fashion.
In Australia, there is no real need for the debate and it isn’t underway. Religion is on the decrease, and Fundies have never been a significant minority (though we tend to follow US trends so there are some signs they are on the increase). At present, there are some politicians with Fundy leanings who have managed to lever themselves into some political power through occupying balance positions. However, there is no significant religious powerbase influencing Australian politics in the way there is in the US.
If you look at the statistics resulting from surveys of people’s stated religion, the US, Australia and the UK don’t look too different. But that in no way tells the real story.
The real story is that the only time the vast majority of Australians actually have anything to do with religion is when they are born, get married, die, or have to fill in a form that asks “Religion?”. The United States is a very religious country. According to this site about 40% of you claim to go to church every week[sup]*[/sup]. Most western countries have much lower rates of attendance. Australia is only on 16%.
The number of religious people in Australia is small. The number of non-religious people who would feel passionately about the need to consider ID would, I suspect, be close to nil. Consequently, the debate in Australia is virtually non-existent.
*I appreciate that the site says that this figure is highly suspect and that the real figure for how many people actually go to church regularly is probably much lower. But for the purposes of this debate it matters not: 40% of US people either go to church or say they do because they think they should.
And having posted that I now see what Askance has posted, which shows how little I bother with the Australian press these days.
Nonetheless, with all due respect I don’t think Askance is reading the politics right. The Federal Education minister is saying certain things because his administration has certain entirely secular goals which necessitate appeasing a certain Fundie leaning politician who holds a key vote. Having made the right noises, I am fairly certain the whole thing will get buried. The vast majority of our conservative party and their supporters are barely religious people.
Askance, I’ve been thinking the same thing - the Federal govt controls the purse strings, and Brendon Nelson has been got at by the small but vocal number of fundamentalists, so we might be facing this issue very soon. It’s interesting - Australian fundies seem to be bypassing the general public and targeting politicians directly, possibly on advice from their US friends.
But to respond to the OP, in Australia ID and creationism were barely even talked about a few years ago. Not long ago I mentioned one of the SDMB debates to someone, who said “Creationism? Isn’t that some wacko American religion?”. Regardless of where the idea started, it does seem to be associated mostly with the US, since no-one else is much interested in it.
I think the issue is a bit more complicated than simply appeasing one very conservative member of Parliament. There are a number of senior politicians (Tony Abbott, Peter Costello) who have associated themselves with some very conservative religious positions and people.
While I think that it’s true Australians overall are not that concerned with religious issues in the same way as Americans seem to be, I think there is real cause for anxiety because of the influence a dedicated pressure group (such as the Australian chapter of Campus Crusade for Christ) can have. A meeting with the Federal Minister for Education is not that easy to get if you’re pushing some new piece of curriculum, so it’s interesting and disturbing that they made it that far.
On the other hand, I have recently had a discussion about intelligent design in my own kitchen, with a Jesuit priest … who is a lecturer in physics education and a propenent of evolution. He believes that if intelligent design was to be taught in schools it should probably be in religious instruction classes.
It’s interesting that Brendan Nelson’s wishy washy approach to the issue has brought him under strong criticism from pretty much everyone but the religious supporters of intelligent design, so possibly there is hope for the country yet.
Oh I agree with you completely - I was just picking on Nelson because he’s the one who spoke up about it. But since he didn’t get the smackdown from the party, I assume he spoke with their support. Or possibly they decided that he should be the one to float the idea, and if it didn’t go down well, then they could distance themselves from him later.
Scientists started getting hostile towards Christians when Christians started pushing for non-science (intelligent design) to be taught in science classes. Christians who want ID taught in science classes clearly do have a problem with science: they are either actively against it or they don’t understand it.
Again I say intelligent design is not falsifiable. If scientists create life in a test tube, the IDists will say “that just proves our point, because the initial conditions were created by an intelligent agent.” If scientists start from some kind of life-like replicating organic molecule and a living cell evolves from it, the IDists will say “that just proves our point, because the molecule was created by an intelligent agent.” There is no experiment that can be done that would conclusively prove intelligent design false, because the “design” aspect can always be moved to some other part of the theory. That’s precisely what makes it unscientific.
Yes it is falsifiable in a “scientific sense”, but of course not in a religous faith sense. If I “believe” the universe is made of green cheese, there is nothing you can do to convince me (“ah but all the quarks, leptons etc are actually made of green cheese”).
However TO A SCIENTIST ID is falsifiable. That is all that matters. So in that sense it is a scientific theory. I should add that many scientists are working indirectly on this problem trying to create life.
One thing I’m getting from this thread is that there seems to be a great deal of confusion over what the term “Intelligent Design” actually refers to, and until everybody can get on the same page about that, there’s not going to be a factual answer to questions like the OP’s, or whether ID is “scientific” or “falsifiable” or “religious.”
No, creating life in a lab won’t falsify ID. Showing that abiogenesis is possible is not the same as proving that it happened. You’d have to prove that it happened in order to falsify ID. Without going back in time, that’s impossible.
If you mean that the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution and the ever-increasing evidence that abiogenesis is possible makes ID (in any of its forms) highly unlikely, then I agree with you. But that’s not falsification.