Who created the Intelligent Designer?

[magellan01]

@John Mace

I think you’d find more scientist in the Bigfoot/Nessie camp than in the Tooth Fairy/Easter Bunny camp.

But let’s be clear. Do you mean a designer as in 1) “started the Big Bang” or 2) “ignited the first spark of life”? Or do you mean a designer as in 3) “tinkered with life during the course of evolution (ie, fiddled with DNA iteslf)”?

It’s the last bit that most people object to teaching in science class, but given that there still is ZERO scientific evidence for the first two meanings, they don’t have any place in a science class either. I also don’t think you’d get any more scientists agreeing with 3) than you would agreeing that Bigfoot or Nessie should be taught in science class.

For me the most compelling argument goes to the question of First Cause, #1. If #1 is true, so I’d say #2, even it means indirectly with his actions stopping at #1. Whether this designer than tweaked things over the eons (#3) and to what degree is probably unknowable. But if the class discussion addressed macro evolution (amoeba to man) in depth, than the weaknesses in the science should be pointed out and the concept of IC touched upon, even if it’s just to introduce kids to the concept, which is an interesting scientific one. One that probably has other applications aside from the evolution debate. Then there’s also the a real-world use for probabaility science. But to be clear, I’m most interested in the Prime Mover concept beiing discussed when our beginnings comes up, for the reasons I’ve mentioned.

@John Mace

Further, though, it’s not about which idea is more far fetched. Just because an Intelligent Designer is more likely than the Tooth Fairy still has no bearing on whether or not you teach ID in school (and we’re talking public school science class here). If all a theory has to be is more likely than the Tooth Fairy, that’s setting the bar way, way, too low.

I think you know that is not where I propose to set the bar. Go back to those hundred scientists. Off the top of my head I’d say that if there is no clear consensus as to an explanation, then the top two or three ideas should be shared, with a threshold of, say, 15%.

[tomndebb]

@magellan01

Go through the results in your head. See the difference. I would wager that a majority of the top scientists would say that an intelligent designer did play a role. I doubt that (hope that) any of the other numbers would be over two.

I say you are wrong and I would be interested to see any examples that I am mistaken. (Even setting aside the fact that a very large number of scientists are either agnostic or atheistic. I would also limit the poll to biologists. There are plenty of physicists, chemists, astronomers, etc. who have no more than a layman’s (mis)understanding of the science of evolution.) We already know the “top scientists” who support ID: Dembski with his really bad probability numbers and Behe with his debunked blood clotting and severely damaged flagella proposals. Who else is there?

Now, you can probably find many biologists who, like Kenneth Miller, accept theistic evolution, but the discussion, here, is specificially about the discredited game of Intelligent Design. I don’t think there is much difference between William Dembski and David Irvine. They may be sincere, but they are willing to fudge data to make their points and they are clearly not “top” scientists or historians. Behe, as noted earlier, has been disavowed by his own peers in his own school.

I really hope that you are not trying to slide ID into the classroom under the auspices of theistic evolution. It should have been clear for some time that capitalized Intelligent Design (which is what most of us oppose shoving into the classroom under the false claim of scientific theory) is not the same as a general belief that the cosmos owes its existence to a designer (or even to God). Theodosius Dobzhansky was clearly a theistic evolutionist (and devout Christian) and it was his work with (the priest) Mendel’s efforts with genetics that provided the engine to drive (neo-)Darwinian thought, but he would have rejected (Dembski’s and Behe’s) Intelligent Design as a bad joke. He was a scientist.

But if the class discussion addressed macro evolution (amoeba to man) in depth, than the weaknesses in the science should be pointed out and the concept of IC touched upon, even if it’s just to introduce kids to the concept, which is an interesting scientific one.

What scientific principle or thought or claim or anything else can be presented by introducing the bogus hypothesis of Intelligent Design as any aspect of science?
If we are going to include ID in biology, then we should include the notion, in chemistry, that demons may be causing explosions when gunpowder or TNT are ignited; we should be noting, in meteorology, that angels might be bowling above the clouds to initiate thunder; we should be noting elsewhere in biology that some filth may be sufficiently corrupt to cause bad bugs to erupt spontaneously with in it. Affter all, we may have scientific answers that differ from those claims, but we have not proven, in every case, that the scientific explanations are 100% true.

I’ve got no problem with addressing First Causes and other issues in a philosophy class. I also have no problem with introducing students to a Philosophy of Science class, in which they explore what science can and cannot present along with the potential pitfalls into which scientists may stumble. (Stephn J. Gould constantly provided observations on those topics in his Science essays.) However, I see no reason to clutter up a biology course with bad science in the hopes that students might come away, as an unintentional bonus, with some views regarding the Philosophy of Science.

[John_Mace]

@magellan01

But if the class discussion addressed macro evolution (amoeba to man) in depth, than the weaknesses in the science should be pointed out and the concept of IC touched upon, even if it’s just to introduce kids to the concept, which is an interesting scientific one.

What “weakness in the science”? Science doesn’t claim to know everything, but just because there are missing data points doesn’t mean we automatically assume that some outside agent is involved. We’ll never have all the data points.

One that probably has other applications aside from the evolution debate. Then there’s also the a real-world use for probabaility science. But to be clear, I’m most interested in the Prime Mover concept beiing discussed when our beginnings comes up, for the reasons I’ve mentioned.

I don’t know what “probability science” has to do with this. If we’re talking about the origins of life, there simply are no scientists doing work on ID and publishing that work in scientific journals. There is nothing to teach from that hypothesis. Nothing. The same applies to discussions of the origin of the universe. If you know of some, can you link to them?

I think you know that is not where I propose to set the bar. Go back to those hundred scientists. Off the top of my head I’d say that if there is no clear consensus as to an explanation, then the top two or three ideas should be shared, with a threshold of, say, 15%.

Unfortunately your hypothetical “ask 100 scientists” is not possible for us to do. Frankly, I’d be surprised if even 1% supported teaching ID. In fact, I’d be surprised if .1% did. I am a scientist, and I know lots of other scientists, and I don’t know a single one who would call ID a scientific hypothesis*, much less advocate teaching that hypothesis in public schools.

Now, if you want to fund some research at a university to do work on ID, go right ahead. If you want to offer a course on ID at the college level, that’s fine-- convince the administration and have at it. But not in a public K-12 school. There is, quite simply, nothing to teach.

*something that is testable and that makes predictions about the physical world.

[Voyager]

@magellan01

Maybe I’m wrong and we are on the same page. If so, I was thrown by ToEbNS. In my mind it shold be ToEbNSaRV. If you were just you shorthand (which I guess you actually were) we understand each other.

I think I’ve finally figured out what you mean by random variation. It is not what is meant by the term in evolution.

Natural selection works by filtering those characteristics which tend to lead to producing successful young. The input to this filtering is the variation in the genome. This variation originates from mutation, but for the most part comes from the natural variation of characteristics within a species - which happens without mutation.

You seem to be saying that random variation causes huge leaps, speciation in one step. I think “hopeful monsters” is the common term. That’s not the way it usually works - a subpopulation drifts until it can no longer mate with the main population. This is not an on/off situation, as lions and tigers, horses and donkeys show.

You also get macro vs. micro evolution wrong. Micro commonly means evolution within a species, macro means speciation. Random variation (in my sense) and natural selection cause both of these.

Now, when you’re talking about top scientists, do you mean biologists or anyone? I don’t know if lots of either believe in theistic evolution or not, but the majority (or even a significant minority) of top biologists do not believe in ID. I’m aware of that supposed list of scientists who don’t accept evolution - take a look at it and you’ll see how few of them are biologists. Notice how the IDers in Dover don’t seem to have anyone to testify except Behe, and he screwed it up.

I didn’t address your list in detail because ID is not an interesting scientific concept - except in the sense that dogs playing poker paintings are an interesting artistic concept. It is absolutely missing everything that supports a theory. At this point any good scientist would not publish anything about it except as pure, unsupported, speculation. Personally I think there is more chance of Nessie existing than that ID will ever be demonstrated.

If a kid asks about an intelligent designer in a lesson about the Big Bang, the right response would be that this is beyond science, no one knows, and no one even knows how to find out. The answer about theistic evolution should be the same. About ID, though, the answer should be there are no real holes requiring an intelligent designer, so that although it can’t be disproven ( a problem right there) there is no need to bring in a desiger to account for anything.

[Voyager]

@magellan01

But if the class discussion addressed macro evolution (amoeba to man) in depth, than the weaknesses in the science should be pointed out and the concept of IC touched upon, even if it’s just to introduce kids to the concept, which is an interesting scientific one. One that probably has other applications aside from the evolution debate. Then there’s also the a real-world use for probabaility science. But to be clear, I’m most interested in the Prime Mover concept beiing discussed when our beginnings comes up, for the reasons I’ve mentioned.

What weakness are you talking about? We of course don’t know the entire story, but how could we expect to? If you mean irreducible complexity, none has ever been demonstrated.

I’d guess that by “probability science” you mean (in biology) that there is a one in a zillion chance that humans would arise. But there is a one in a zillion chance that the sperm carrying your genes would be the one to make it to the egg. Yet it happened. If you think that somehow man was destined to appear, then you are a theistic evolutionist. If you think we’re just accidental, then you’re a secular evolutionist. You can’t tell without replaying the tape. As for the structure of the cosmos, we hardly know enough to say whether constants are inevitable results of the fabric of reality, or if they get set accidentally. We’re certainly not ready to call in the creator as a necessity!

I think you know that is not where I propose to set the bar. Go back to those hundred scientists. Off the top of my head I’d say that if there is no clear consensus as to an explanation, then the top two or three ideas should be shared, with a threshold of, say, 15%.

If you get 1 our of the top 100 biologists, I’d be very surprised. I’ve never heard one member of the NAS support ID - I’m sure if one did he or she would be trumpeted widely. I don’t think you appreciate how real scientists feel about ID and creationism.

[JustAnotherGeek]

@Magellan01

Maybe I’m wrong and we are on the same page. If so, I was thrown by ToEbNS. In my mind it shold be ToEbNSaRV. If you were just you shorthand (which I guess you actually were) we understand each other.

Which grade/year/class do you teach?

::shrugs:: That’s the name of the theory, AFAIK.

Earth Sci., Chemistry, and Physics, to 9th, 11th and 12th graders (respectively). Right now, I’m not teaching; I took the year off to finish a master’s in physical oceanography.

BTW, Have you read Kenneth Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God? You might be quite interested to read about theistic evolution, and get his take on this whole issue. Although I have not read it myself, one of my colleagues was quite impressed by it; I was quite impressed with the speech he gave when he came to my college shortly after his deposition in the Dover case.

[John_Mace]

@JustAnotherGeek

BTW, Have you read Kenneth Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God? You might be quite interested to read about theistic evolution, and get his take on this whole issue. Although I have not read it myself, one of my colleagues was quite impressed by it; I was quite impressed with the speech he gave when he came to my college shortly after his deposition in the Dover case.

That looks like a real good read. I think I’ll add that to my list, but proabably for the opposite reason you recommend. As an atheist, I struggle with why other scientists insist on trying to reconcile God and science. Why they are unwilling to dispell this belief that they almost certainly would never have if they hadn’t been taught about it as a child.

[JustAnotherGeek]

@John Mace

trying to reconcile God and science

::shrugs again::

I think it is an incredibly difficult thing to live in a world of doubt. It’s not a natural state for the human mind. Almost everyone wants some kind of “final answer.” It’s so much easier to say, “there is X” than is it to say, “all evidence seems to point towards the statement that X exists, but we cannot be 100% certain (99.9999%, maybe, but not 100%).” I could even argue that Atheism is a belief. (I won’t here, 'cause that’s way too big of a hijack.) Not that I’m trying to disuade you from reading the book; simply my thoughts on your last sentence.

[Scylla]

Well, a couple of observations:

The main problem with all these theories goes to the first cause. Who created the intelligent designer? What created the Big Bang? It’s essentially the same argument.

The Natural Philosopher Leibniz stated that if we are to describe the world we must do so in terms of the things of which it consists.

Both the Big Bang, and ID fail in this test. Don’t get me wrong, I think ID is a bag of dirt, but it’s interesting that they share this common flaw.

I think this is what the OP is getting at.
And, I have an answer… of sorts. The question itself may be meaningless, or a logical fallacy. It seems obvious to us that everything has a cause or a precursor because that is the world that we live in and that is what we have come to expect.

Just because it seems inherent to us that one thing causes another does not mean that the rule always applies… or for that matter… is common.

We know for a fact that matter is spontaneously created and destroyed all the time. We know this by observing Hawking radiation. This creation of matter exists outside of causation.

Causation therefore is not a necessity of the universe.

If we were to grant for the benefit of argument that the ID theory has a provable point such that life complexities “too complex” to spontaneously evolve (positing infinity, I don’t see how “too complex” is meaningful,) it does not necessarily follow that somebody had to come along and design it. The universe demonstrates that you can have a watch without a watchmaker.

Same goes for evolution and the Big Bang.

We deal in a world where air is everywhere. Early scientists figured that meant that air pervaded the universe. It is an easy misconception to make it to extrapolate local rules and conditions as universals.

Similarly, just because everything that we know came from something else doesn’t necessarily mean that this is a universal condition. There is in fact, no reason to think so.

Big Bangs just may happen without cause. There is a nonzero chance that another Big Bang will spontaneously occur in front of your monitor as you read this.

Big Bangs may be occuring outside of our universe all the time. Since our universe is merely the area defining the circumference that light could travel since our Big Bang, these would in fact be other universes.

Before the Big Bang, there was no time (or infinite time, it doesn’t matter really.) Positing a nonzero chance of a Big Bang occuring, it is inevitable that one would.

Tomndeb:

I noticed you were earlier trashing panspermia, but there’s nothing wrong with the theory. It’s really a question of odds.

If life arises relatively easily and spontaneously than the odds of it doing so are high, and it is unlikely that the universe will be populated by panspermia.

If life evolving is very difficult and rare to to such a degree that the chances of it arising are slim compared to the chances of panspermia occuring, than it is likely that that panspermia is the root cause.

We really don’t know what the odds of life arising spontaneously are, but the odds of panspermia occuring are deducable to a certain degree. I am convinced that it’s not especially unlikely.

We know for a fact that in its early years earth was routinely bombarded with matter, and this bombardment knocked material from earth out of the atmosphere.

So, let’s use an example: The dinosaur killer asteroid slams into earth and sends millions of tons of matter into space. Most life is instantly vaporized. Most of the material falls back to earth. Some vanishingly small percentage escapes earth’s gravity, falls to towards the sun, gaining velocity and shoots off into the Ooort cloud. Some percentage of this just keeps going.

Some of that material contains matter in which bacteria or viruses may have survived, or may be in a hibernation stage (the stuff in rocks, for example.) some of it may be shielded from radiation, and some of it may survive intact for millenia or longer as it travels. Some of this may survive a landing on another planet.

This is not too horribly inconceivable since we have rocks from mars that made it intact to earth and we examine these for signs of life. Such journeys do occur, or can occur on an interplanetary scale. Nothing precludes an interstellar scale.

Now it’s simply a question of whether these viruses, bacteria, or even self-replicating molecules can arrive in a hospitable area.

If the odds of this kind of thing happening are high compared to the chances of life evolving spontaneously than panspermia is likely, as life would only have to occur one to populate the universe given time.

If the odds of panspermia and spontaneous evolution are equivalent, than likely both occur.

If the odds of life occuring spontaneously are high compared to the likelihood of panspermia than panspermia is likely moot.

Until such a time as we can actually quantify these odds to a meaningful degree, pooh-poohing either theory is premature.

[tomndebb]

Until such a time as we can actually quantify these odds to a meaningful degree, pooh-poohing either theory is premature.

I was not actually denigrating the general notion of panspermia as noting that it does not answer the question it is purported to explain: where/how did life originate? I have no problem with people seeking to find evidence that life on Earth began with a panspermian event, (it is possible, I’m sure), but that simply pushes back the “origin” question one more layer of turtles.