Dr. Monton says, "The doctrine of intelligent design has been maligned
by atheists, but even though I'm an atheist, I'm of the opinion that
the arguments for intelligent design are stronger than most realize.
After trying to figure out what the doctrine of intelligent design
actually is, I'll argue that it's legitimate to view intelligent
design as science, that there are somewhat plausible arguments for the
existence of a cosmic designer, and that intelligent design should be
taught in public school science classes."
Bradley Monton is a professor of philosophy at CU Boulder specializing
in philosophy of science, philosophy of physics, probabilistic/formal
epistemology, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of time. One of
his main research areas involves science-based arguments for the
existence of God.
An excellent PBS Documentary:
Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial
Tells the story in re-enactments and interviews of the amazing Dover trial in which it was shown that "Intelligent Design" was nothing more than creationism repackaged and therefore NOT SCIENCE.
Can be watched in its entirety on the PBS website in the link above.
It never ceases to amaze me how the fundamentally religious can deny the very science that keeps them healthy. Without evolutionary science, there would be no modern medicine. I wonder how many of them have had surgery, taken an antibiotic or just visited their family physician.
People can still believe in God and Evolution at the same time! It just takes a little restructuring of beliefs on the side of the religiously motivated.
March 23, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Transcript Here for the video impaired.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id.html
March 23, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dr. Monton arguing with Pennock re testability of the supernatural:
http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/testing-the-supernatural/
In reading the above, it seems that we arrive at postulates or "givens" in science and philosophy. The omnipotent supernatural creator is a "given" or a postulate in certain intelligent design camps. If C is omnipotent and C wants material result on earth Y, then there will be Y on earth. Monton says Y on earth, being material, is testable.
March 24, 2009 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
On first review of the transcript at NOVA I can see that this documentary addresses a more fundamentalist protestant dispute with evolution using an intelligent design approach not far from Creationism.
What I do not see is my own thinking on intelligent design represented in the big-media-drama-conflict set-up. It's just not treated there.
We could talk about the approach of those doubting evolution, but I think my approach agrees more with this one:
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth15.html
I do differ with philosophical conclusions drawn from evidence supporting evolutionary theory when they illegitimately claim the mantle of science, and substantively.
March 24, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/category/intelligent-design/
Bradley Monton's blog discussing intelligent design. Read at your own risk.
March 23, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
From your link you posted Kent Greenawalt said in his book on pg 124-5:
Wrong. Watch the documentary above. The judge was even appointed by GWB himself! The evidence for evolution was overwhelming. 150 years and Darwin's theory has never been proven wrong. In fact, the more technologically advanced we become, the more the theory is strengthened. The case for intelligent design?
Watch the documentary Mike, then you can argue the fine points with us, because I really do not want to get into discussions about eyes and bacterial flagellan's with you. Those points have already been discounted in the documentary.
March 23, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's Monton's blog quoting Greenwalt; the substantive, not the procedural is what concerns me. Whether "they" have had a day in court makes little difference to me, because not all who believe that the origins of the cosmos involved an intelligent creator are literal creationists.
That's particularly true for those who have studied and appreciate the literary devices, cultural norms, and priorities of the redactors of the Genesis. Those who do tend not to see what many creationist ID adherents see.
My concern is the exclusion of the ID explanation of origins. Such an explanation, preserved for weight and consideration, would not change an iota of scientific method or scientific process. It may, however, "create" if you'll pardon the pun, a parallel point of observation and study that seeks marks of intelligent design in the cosmos. To exclude such a means of study or punish those who bother with it, damages intellectual freedom.
Scientists send out communications "just in case" there might be intelligent life in the universe. How are believed intelligent civilizations that we assume would be enough like us to get the message, different from believed intelligent life that we believe to be enough like us to get the message?
March 23, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"My concern is the exclusion of the ID explanation of origins."
What is that explanation, a myth? Or is it that something unimaginable and evidently not part of nature designed a whole boatload of stuff in crazy ways some of which evolved into what we have now and some of which died off? Or what?
As long as you're vague you can bullshit. Try being specific and then see how it adds up.
March 24, 2009 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is the Big Bang vague?
March 24, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm saying that you are being vague. Communication fails, or flails, when you are not clear about what you're interested in. See my other recent replies for more.
I repeat the core of my above reply:
What is that explanation, a myth? Or is it that something unimaginable and evidently not part of nature designed a whole boatload of stuff in crazy ways some of which evolved into what we have now and some of which died off? Or what?
March 24, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Explain how it is exactly that I have been vague. By reading my comments you'll pick up on my interests. If they seem vague to you, it is because I'm not entering in with a partisan agenda in which black and white satisfy those who traded their intellect's in for partisan social acceptance long ago.
Instead, I'd rather *discuss* this topic. Judging by the number of comments, I'd say Dr. Monton's thinking was an effective catalyst for that.
If you still want to allege vagueness, then point out what specifically you find vague, and explain why it is a problem. Be specific.
Otherwise, welcome to a free and open discussion on the merits.
March 24, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"intellect's" corrected to "intellects"
March 24, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
and yes, "Big Bang" is vague and ambiguous in its brevity in your use of it.
March 25, 2009 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I already pointed it out.
]
You're still ignoring the points I raised.
March 25, 2009 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll read the transcript of the documentary, BTW, and discuss when ready. Those matters I can discuss this evening during a window of oppty to write, I'll put first. But I will get to it and will look at it carefully.
March 23, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intelligent design isn't monolithic; there are people with varying perspectives on it. One federal court case with limited participation does not and should not speak for everyone in the country with varying perspectives on intelligent origins and arrangement of the cosmos.
My individual perspective happens to be that ID is a theory and a belief of origins of the cosmos, not beginning with biology, and therefore not beginning with Darwin.
Can the theory of intelligent origins be scientifically tested? The answer depends on what features scientific evidence would have to have to be acceptable proof of intelligence in the design- origins of the cosmos.
At some point, all science involves reason within experimental design, inference from findings, and postulating. That is part of its philosophical basis.
I also recognize revolutionary science and its propensity for changing what it is possible to measure or test.
In view of the above, ID or the Big Bang are theories of origins of the cosmos and long term hybrid questions that do not determine scientific methods, disciplines, procedures, or discoveries since.
March 24, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Trials are great for coming to a judgment. But they're not always the way to get to truth.
March 23, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
i saw that documentary. Very well done, not sensational and really put the matter into terms people can readily grasp.
Most importantly, it separates the question of whether or not you believe in God from the "theory" of intelligent design (and how the "theory" itself was designed) with the rigorous approach taken to refute it during the trial.
Well worth watching. Perhaps Mike7 would benefit from watching... perhaps.
March 23, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read the blog I cited, or are you here to issue prescriptions without doing so?
Glad to watch a documentary. Will you read?
March 23, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
It's good to know . . .
. . . you're still ordering people around like they're your personal chattle...
Not very "Christ-like" of you.
QUACK!
~OGD~
March 24, 2009 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Second!
March 24, 2009 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been looking around trying to find that part of the Christian creed that says you can't be straightforward with your questions in a public discussion forum. Can't seem to find it. Or where asking a direct question challenging someone to read something is an "order."
You protest too much.
March 24, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You deny too much, when you aren't distracting too much.
March 24, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the duck makes an abrupt stop, we'll send the extraction team to pull you out. (0;
March 24, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hey Bonzo . . .
By your style and approach exhibited in your writing and addressing of individuals around the Cafe has for years been nothing less than a haughty spirit.
Look that one up quick and get back to us. Or, you can just keep on sliding.
And now -- as I pointed over two years ago:
I find you a bore.
~OGD~
March 24, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that two or three times Mage. Really great. It helps so much to see a good solid documentary and then read articles about the subject.
Inherit the Wind. Good comment as always.
March 23, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
:) Thanks DD
March 23, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You straw-man a class when you say what you say about the fundamentally religious.
You have not surveyed them all. Intelligent design, for many, is about origins and the involvement of intelligence, not about denying scientific discoveries and theories.
While some take it that far, preferring prejudice to study, that is not everyone. Your comment shows it goes both ways.
March 23, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hardly Mike. There is a reason why they don't call algebra "Muslim Algebra". There is a reason why they don't call physics "Christian Physics" even though it was those particular groups who first discovered them.
While it should be obvious I will explain why - these subjects are testable with the same conclusions across the whole spectrum of mankind.
Only science theories that can be tested are science. If you have to take a leap of faith in order for your theory to work, it is not science, it is philosophy.
Now if you want to teach the philosophy of Intelligent Design in a World Religions class...hey go right ahead. But let's put it in its proper context shall we?
March 23, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intelligent design is philosophy, also. However, it can also be a scientific theory if there were agreement on what good empirical evidence for intelligence in the cosmic design would be. If we never have in mind what good evidence for or against intelligent design would be, we cannot even discover whether the theory can be tested. Not being able to discover whether ID, version X can be tested because of a fundamental political disagreement on terms is much different than saying it can't be tested.
I'd submit that how far one is willing to infer from found facts has something to do with whether it is called inference versus faith.
March 24, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can metaphysics be the proper object of epistemic research, aka science?
Theory is to science, as myth is to metaphysics.
March 24, 2009 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is it known in science when researchers stumble on (because of advanced means of observation or detection or accident) something that would have been considered metaphysical had someone conceived of it without scientific method? Since they hadn't detected it before, would it then be defined as non-metaphysical merely because they discovered it, labeled it and worked it into their own vague meaning of "natural causes?"
If so, then this suggests a more political or legal struggle for dominance over labeling by some scientists (mostly biologists) rather than cooperation between philosophers and scientists. I'd not be surprised. Law, religion, art and a number of other areas have been spoiled by over-politicization.
Can you tell me the essence of a photon or a quark? I know what they are labeled, but can we encompass what they actually are? Can we define them without relying on words whose definitions themselves refer to others ad infinitum? Can we say they are not metaphysical?
We can say how they work. But can we explain how super-collider experiments found that a quark may disappear to "nowhere" and reemerge from "nowhere" and still be relying only on science? The "nowhere" has to be mentioned, yet it isn't defined or understood. As such, it takes on a metaphysical quality.
These matters are not as clear cut as many would like to make them.
March 24, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh but the "yet be explained" does not necessarily = "intelligent designer". In fact, in all of science, when the "yet to be explained" IS explained, an Intelligent Creator was not part of the equation.
ID is a God of the gaps Mike. If say that a thing that has yet be explained by science must be explained by ID by default, then the search for the true workings of the natural world stop. Notice I said workings, not meanings. Workings are science, meanings are philosophy.
Luckily for us, there have been many scientists, medical researchers and the like who have thrown off the shackles of mysticism to discover the advances in science we now enjoy today.
March 24, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unexplained things are not automatically marks of intelligent design or intelligent content within a posited explanation. Nor should they be exclusive of the possibility of intelligence. I'm not convinced of your "all" conclusion above.
For discussion, try here where Monton discusses "strong" versus "weak" interpretative premises in the testability of what is called supernature:
http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/testing-the-supernatural/
Who would exclude the possibility of intelligence within or behind unexplained or explained phenomena would not purify science, because such an exclusion is philosophical, not necessitated by science.
Science is the experiment and its raw data. What we make of it comes from the realm of reason. What are reasonable experiments, evidences and experimental designs for testing hypotheses?
You have admitted that one may program intelligent design into hypotheses with interpretive findings of inconclusive or against the idea of intelligence (you don't cite specifics, however). This confirms that investigating intelligence in the cosmos is not only possible, but has already been done.
Is there intelligence behind the design of naturally occurring things? What role should probability play in validating attempts to find out interpreting scientific data?
To some degree, the hypothetical nature of "hypotheses" are the norm and one may see ID appear in hypotheticals involving probability. In such hypothesis, there would be the issue of ID being more likely or not. A negative finding in some instance isn't monolithic, since scientific experiments are specific. That's why your "all" assertion above is not likely. (0;
March 24, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, my eyes glaze over at the verbiage. I refer to both your proximal reply to my above comment in this subthread and the reply to which I here reply.
If you have a point, please be concise. Are you arguing for something, against something, or just engaging in pointless fencing practice here?
March 24, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So far, your 0 for 0 on substance. But you have a great many form criticisms that others don't seem to get into when discussing the actual topic, or God forbid, adding to it.
March 24, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you had no point. Got it.
March 25, 2009 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please tell me which scientists exactly you mean whose discoveries were made because they "threw off the shackles of mysticism." Any quotes of those scientists crediting that as a causative relationship?
What's the meaning of this? (0;
March 24, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any answers to the questions of para. 1?
March 24, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you mean "empirical" and not "epistemic"?
Epistemology refers to the study of how you get knowledge or seek truth, and it is a branch of philosophy. Here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
March 24, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I meant it pretty much as written.
March 25, 2009 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
WHAT KIND OF ENGINEER IS GOD? (A NEW SPIN OF AN OLD JOKE)
March 23, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The kind that probably wonders how the owner of "the designed" has managed to re-engineer so many defects into the blueprints.
March 23, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good joke, BTW. Thanks for it.
March 24, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cute.
March 23, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a GEM. I hereby award you the Knightly GEM LINK Award of the day for this TPMC site, given to all of you from all of me.
I love stuff like this. Oh and this:
Because,” the Engineering Professor replies with a big goofy grin, “only a Civil Engineer would run a sewage line through a recreation area!”
Wonderful.
March 24, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great one Merrill! LOL!
March 24, 2009 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Intelligent design is not science and it is not scientific in any way, shape or form. It is gibberish, balderdash, nonsense, baloney, the royal nonesuch, a sham, a shame, it is Vince selling the shamwow, it is Billy May selling Kaboom, it is the Ronco collapsable fising rod, it is The Emperor with No Clothes, it is P.T. Barnum's "this way to the egress" sign, it is crap, it is excement, it is silly, it is ridiculous, it is foolishness, it is an embarrassment to all of humankind.
March 23, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you read Monton's blog?
An example:
http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/on-the-terminology-of-chance/
March 23, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Mike, I have. He's wrong, it has no place in science class because it is not scientific procedure. Supernatural explanations cannot be used to explain the natural - science is the study of natural laws. There would be no point in teaching science if the answer was always supernatural which it could be if people insist that the supernatural be taught as a discipline. I don't much care what people believe in, but I do care very much how and what people are taught in schools.
March 23, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not offering supernatural explanations, however, he is dealing with the soundness of the arguments from design that do not exclude the possibility of intelligence.
You should tell us how he is wrong, specifically, rather than merely tell us he is wrong.
March 23, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no soundness in the argument that an answer to humankind's questions is that a supernatural event takes place or has taken place. That's the equivelant of Einstein writing his equation as "a miracle happened" = MC 2. I don't want that kind of laxness of scientific discipline taught to children.
Now I'm sorry, I know religious people are used to being deferred and catered to but I don't see that as helpful anymore, the world moves to quickly, children need to be taught according to correct standards in the disciplines and we cannot afford to tolerate this anymore.
March 23, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another misdirection.
Intelligent design doesn't go to mechanisms, it goes to origins or sources, so to speak. Explain one discovery it would preclude.
I'll define terms. Intelligent design speaks to origins, not mechanisms.
March 23, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that depends on which Intelligent Design proponent you talk to. Some really do believe there are mechanical proofs of ID. They have been disproven of course, but the point (and question) is - which flavor of ID are you advocating here Mike?
March 23, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intelligent design, for me, is about intelligent origins and design in the cosmos. Biological origins are a subset and sequel. Some focus on biology to wag the dog.
March 24, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Metaphysics is not cosmology.
You have to choose.
March 24, 2009 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you remembering your studies in school?
Metaphysics is a branch of cosmology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology_(metaphysics)
Will you concede?
March 24, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
So was Astrology at one time. When men with limited knowledge of the heavens, assigned meaning to the movement of the stars and planets. Of course astrology was totally debunked when we found out how the universe actually moves.
The sad thing is? - there are still people in the modern world who will not leave the house until they consult their horoscope and find out what color underwear to wear.
Or spend fortunes on "psychics" who will read tea leaves, or tarot cards, or print up a customized astrological charts for them. The worst of these "psychics" will play upon the grief of people who have had a loved one die.
We have to debunk the mystic explanations to prevent the uninformed from becoming prey to these people.
March 24, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice decoy. We were talking about metaphysics not astrology. This goes off the topic.
March 24, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
They can be related but if mix them up you're just talking trash. Synonomy is not equality, as is shown by the failure of transitivity of similie.
A is like B is like C is like D.
But A and D are not alike.
You're just talking trash, I know, but for other readers maybe this was informative.
March 24, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for attempting to explain.
March 24, 2009 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You still need to choose. Until you do, you're just talking trash.
March 25, 2009 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You realize of course that Intelligent Design fails to meet the fundamental definition of what constitutes 'Science'. For something to be a scientific theory, there has to be a means to conclusively disprove it (hypothetically speaking, however the data necessary to disprove it may not exist, in which case it is treated as 'fact' until data shows otherwise). Intelligent Design cannot be disproven, as there is no scientific means to disprove the existence of a higher power, largely because there is no scientific evidence that there is a higher power in the first place.
Bottom line, for something to be science, there has to be some way to conclusively disprove it. As you cannot disprove intelligent design (as it is more a philosophy than a science), it is simply not a valid scientific theory.
March 23, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any theory that uses the supernatural to explain the natural isn't science - it is a ghost story.
March 23, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, Bev! I like that: A ghost story!
It amazes me how often when people try to put this position forward, some religion-believer feels offended and tries to turn them into evil agents.
They might even say they believe in Freedom of Religion, as long as one believes in one religion or other, that is!
(Infantile, ain't it?)
March 23, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that is what belief in the supernatural is - ghost stories. A need to explain natural phenomenon with the supernatural because they for whatever reasons simply do not care to find out what does explain it. If the house creaks at night, it must be because the gremlins and ghosties are running amuck.
Over half the people in this country still believe in ghosts, what does that say about us as a society? Backward, superstitious bumpkins.
March 23, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah but you're above them, aren't you. And that, with false analogies a plenty. Comparing belief in God or a grand intelligence behind the universe with ghost stories? That's just atheist sophistry.
March 24, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is natural?
Is all that is natural unintelligent?
And if super is added to natural, is that different than natural in general terms?
Or is it the intelligence that disqualifies the theory from the beginning with you?
March 23, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like string theory?
Define your terms: what is supernatural versus natural?
Why is something super not part of its containing set.
Both supernatural and natural have nature in common.
March 24, 2009 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you can't define supernatural, what you say doesn't have much meaning.
You argue this point without defining your terms.
I'd refer you to other comments on this subject in this blog.
March 24, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
It really depends on the definition of intelligent design.
Many see signs of intelligent design or process in the cosmos. What we do with a theory that evolution involves an intelligence supreme to our own is up to each of us. The intelligence part doesn't require you think of God if you do not think it is warranted.
March 23, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point still stands. It isn't science, because you can't disprove it.
March 23, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then Darwin's theory, to be science, could still be disproved. Revolutionary science implies it.
The notion that Darwin's theory has only been strengthened over time because it has not been disproved is an argument of frequency of a non-occurrence without contextual data.
March 24, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Intelligent design is as much science as the theory of the origin of the Big Bang is science.
March 24, 2009 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like this comment Mike. But now I am confused because you are advocating a different version of ID than is the standard. Most ID proponents believe that man could not have evolved from a common ancestor and had to have been "created" by an Intelligent Creator.
If you are saying that evolution (including man) can stand, as evolutionary science suggests, but that everything in the universe had to have a creator shooting the gun that started the big bang...well...I know many people who would agree with you.
But Mike...ID still is not science either way. It is philosophy.
March 23, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've written it near the top of our comments, but what you say really depends on what we accept or do not accept as postulates and 'givens' within experimental designs to test for intelligence within nature.
Supernature and nature have similarities. One may be immaterial and the other material but both related to 'materiality'; one transcendent and the other subordinate but both relate to power; however, both occur as a matter of course within 'all that is' and are therefore 'naturally occurring.'
What astounds me is that even scientists do not commonly reach the end of the cascading definitions referring to definitions expanding out from terms in the definitions of accepted terms.
March 24, 2009 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dr. Monton apparently sees strong arguments in favor.
March 23, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
In favour of what, Mike? Miracles happening? He should know better than to further this nonsense.
March 23, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your philosophisms without real argument or evidence or even an attempt at engaging ideas. I suspect you'd show up to defend a thesis even if you didn't have one.
March 24, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an interesting exchange:
http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/on-the-terminology-of-chance/
March 23, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it wasn't really interesting.
I'm not sure why you insist on pushing this gentleman's take on this issue....are we supposed to be impressed because he insists that he's an atheist?
March 23, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's worked at it a bit harder than one who self-awards his diploma by slapping a Darwin fish on his bumper.
March 24, 2009 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I submit that Dr. Monton is an idiot. Dr. Monton is obviously not a scientist. He just plays on on TV. His mother would be so proud.
It isn't atheists that eschew Intelligent Design the most forcefully, it's the scientists.
"Bottom line, for something to be science, there has to be some way to conclusively disprove it." Or show that it is likely true.
Intelligent design has been set up to argue that the poor understanding that the Intelligent Design crew-members have of Evolution can't be the way it works, and their poor understanding of Evolution, of course, isn't the way it works. It doesn't mean Evolution is lousy, only their understanding. Of course, nothing ventured, nothing gained.......
I have no problem with religious people who want to believe that God created the universe and allowed it to develop as science has shown it to have developed. The ones that drive me crazy are the boneheads who want to deny what biological science has made plain to us.
March 23, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brantlamb, your calling the philosopher an idiot because he's not a scientist is not well-taken. Were he an historian of medicine, would he be an idiot because he was not a physician and also pointed out that some superseded medical treatments had worthy components to them?
I hope not.
March 24, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike, thanks for interesting post.
My faith is what delivers my beliefs. In my opinion, people will decide their stance based on their faith. Science, theories and/or hyperbole will seldom overcome their 'faith' beliefs. At least, not for the masses.
It can be debated until, well you know, but in the grand scheme of things our faith or lack thereof will be the deciding factor.
March 23, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this is what is really frightening - "people will decide their stance based on their faith. Science...will seldom overcome 'faith' beliefs." Religion and faith in gods is now hindering our evolution as a species.
March 23, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really. I thought it was television, not communities of people who help each other and their neighbors in devotion to God.
March 24, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sam, believe what you may. It doesn't make it real just because you believe it.
Your faith is not what delivers your beliefs. Your faith is not defining factor of anything: You are making a choice.
Reality is independent of your beliefs!
March 23, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point was what is 'real' to the individual is oft mired in their belief system and/or their interpretation of it. The choices we make are based on our own ideological/moral/thought processes.
My beliefs and feelings pro or con definition of evolution of humanity is mine. You have the right to have your convictions as I do. Differ tho' we may, I respect your stance and your rights to express/defend it.
What's interesting to me is how does someone's beliefs make BevD's statement 'Religion and faith in gods is now hindering our evolution as a specie' valid? Specifics please.
I don't want to impede or cease scientists research nor do I encourage others to do so.
March 23, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
That clarifies your views. Thank you.
"how does someone's beliefs make BevD's statement 'Religion and faith in gods is now hindering our evolution as a specie' valid?"
I can't speak for Bev or what she really meant. I don't think anyone's beliefs are hindering our evolution as a species: our evolution is going to happen as it may, no matter what.
What I do see clearly is that, if not you, many others do in fact "want to impede or cease scientists research" in the name of their beliefs. Trying to impose in schools the teaching of Intelligent Design instead of Evolution is just one example of that.
March 23, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but evolution doesn't happen "no matter what" and as a species we do have the intelligence to direct and divert our evolution.
For centuries now, science and progress has had to fight and claw over the religious and religion in order to advance and we no longer should have to have this kind of superstition barring us from progress. I used to believe that we should be tolerant of all views and beliefs, but that doesn't work. When we have ignorant, superstitious bumpkins insisting that science be taught as another "belief" system, then we need for the safety and advancement of our society stop that kind of nonsense.
March 23, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Religion is hindering our evolution as a species because it provides the excuse we use to avoid responsibility for ourselves as a species. If everything that happens in the universe is some god's will, then we have no will, evolution is wrong and there is no incentive to improve ourselves and species.
We can no longer afford this kind of superstition and rank stupidity - intelligent design is NOT science, it is NOT thory, it IS a hindrance to educating human beings to think and act for the betterment of the species, instead of the individual. Why do we have to tolerate teaching silly beliefs to people? If we no longer tolerate slavery, then why should we tolerate this kind of tyranny, the tyranny that all beliefs are correct and useful if people want to believe them?
March 23, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point.
March 23, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
BevD.
Just to make sure I fully understand your statements referencing 'ignorant, superstitious bumpkins'. Are you asserting that all people of faith are in this category?
If not, there goes the whole rank stupidity theory. The only 'hindrance' anyone has to think and act for what they believe to be the betterment of OUR species is of their own individual core perceptions, priorities and personal processes.
Why do we have to tolerate teaching silly beliefs, et al. - Well, I can only speak for myself and I am a strong proponent of the separation of church and state! So, since our schools are of the state, I don't support that any doctrine's ideology is taught in public schools.
As far as your statement... 'then why should we tolerate this kind of tyranny, the tyranny that all beliefs are correct and useful if people want to believe them?' Couldn't agree more - so glad you endorse that we are all entitled to our own belief system free of the tyranny of those who would ridicule and denigrate others whose belief system is different.
March 23, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Religion actually incited inquiries which set the foundation for empiricism. Its subsequent marriage to the state then made religion a control vehicle rather than a moral, spiritual and discovery vehicle.
March 23, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Galileo, locked up for the remainder of his life by the church/state because he dared state that the earth was not the center of the solar system and that we actually revolved around the Sun.
How dare Galileo blaspheme in such a way! Everyone knows we are God's chosen and we are the center of the known universe.
March 23, 2009 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right: the church-state is not really the church herself. It's a voodoo doll that ultimately results in persecution of the church.
March 24, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show proof of your claims. Scientific proof.
Religiosity and mysticism is wired in the brain: would you say that was evolutionary?
Taken from Darwinian inference alone, here would be the benefits:
-social group cohesion
-social organization
-societies of altruism
-welfare functions
-prayer mitigating stress
-social order
-self-sacrifice for the good of the many
And you say our "evolution" is hindered by all of this?
March 24, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If reality is independent of belief, it is also independent of thoughts. I'm not convinced the universe is that mechanistic and soulless.
March 27, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aunt Sam, what many of the atheist philosophes utilize in making unsupported assertions about what science *precludes* is faith. Their faith is in their own judgment, yet their judgment does not follow any scientific experiment result requiring what they require.
March 24, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a failure of courage, intellectually, to give up the hard work of assembling explanatory theory.
If something were truly designed by an awareness, what gives us any confidence we would notice? More likely, simple engineering tends to look like magic to those who aren't familiar with the nuts and bolts.
But I'll grant you this: The universe was designed to be friendly to life, and has been running on its own since. When process after process becomes explainable, the trend is obvious---miracles need not apply, life is not instilled into inanimate matter by intervention, etc.
I mention designing the universe to escape the anthropic question, why are the fundamental constants so convenient? The easy answer is if they weren't we would not be asking. The longer answer is of various sorts, and I have a version which I'll offer if you wish. But it wasn't a God of this Universe that Acted, it as a research project in another universe, and the definition of universe precludes further intervention.
Biblical God may exist, but He is not Necessary. And he has some 'splainin' to do, anyway, if He shows up again.
March 23, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting - I don't find the universe to be designed as friendly to life, in fact I would argue it is just the opposite.
March 23, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he meant friendly as in "able to support" life Bev, but I agree with you. The universe is definitely not "friendly" to life. I love cosmologist Neil deGrasse Tyson's take. Check it out here:
Stupid Design
It is hilarious because it is so true.
March 23, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom, you may not have time to read all the comments, but my use of "intelligent design" is not that of the popular litigants or creationist movements. I don't say evolution doesn't happen. I may differ with inferences from data supporting evolutionary theories.
My key argument here has been against exclusion of attempts to and the freedom to construct viable, testable intelligent design theory as an inquiry into material science.
The principal purpose: to relieve suffering or improve life for people. Learning more about origins / sources of life and universe will have value for those nearer the end of this lifespan. It may also relate back to earlier questions and answers raised, however, not to obviate experiments and testing.
March 24, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.”—Heb. 3:4.
When we see a camera, a radio, or a computer, we readily acknowledge that it must have been produced by an intelligent designer.
Would it be reasonable, then,
to say that far more complex things—the eye, the ear, and the human brain—did not originate with an intelligent Designer?
Is there evidence that an invisible Creator exists?
Can we see the air we breathe? Yet we feel it in a breeze, or it fills our lungs.
We cannot see gravity.
We see and feel the effects yet we can’t see it
Humans have discovered how to release the energy from the atom, but who put the binds on the atom?
Is it reasonable to believe in things we cannot see?
No one is forced to belief only fools say there is no invisible Creator.
March 23, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
See my comment below...
March 23, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only fools say there is no invisible creator? Oh, really?
Yeah, if we agree that a radio or a camera was made by an intelligent designer (for which there is ample evidence of the technology over the years)...we should also believe there was an intelligent designer who made an eye, an ear, or a brain?
That makes as much sense as this:
My dog has fur. My mother has a fur coat; therefore she has a coat made from a dog.
No, we cannot see gravity, but we can measure it. We can't see air, but we know the molecules that make it up. If we didn't have that information, you would probably be saying that god is holding us to earth with some kind of glue, and that air is a supernatural bunch of "stuff."
Be careful if you dismiss people as fools when they just know more than you do.
March 23, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You logic is foolish,
You wrote, “My dog has fur. My mother has a fur coat; therefore she has a coat made from a dog.”
The illustration could be true, not practical though.
Where were you? Oh brilliant one, at the formation of the Earth.
Of how the Earth tilted on its axis helps sustain life.
The moon PLACED in its proper position, controlling the tides.
The Earth in its place so we don’t burn or freeze
The formation of gender in order to propagate the species
They’re being so many examples of intelligent design, to mention in this brief space.
But to be sure many ungrateful and supercilious, who believe only what, they personally understand.
Being incapable of mental processes to comprehend, what some wise humans have ascertained from Creation itself.
Only to mock those with the ability to reason, that here is an intelligent designer with Superior Wisdom and intellect.
I would suggest YOU do more research and meditate on what you hear and read and you too will begin to appreciate a loving Creator.
If not, you only deprive yourself of the benefits that come from the depth of knowledge from having a relationship with the UNIVERSAL SOVEREIGN. Whose works made it possible for you to exist even you.
Those having a relationship stand in sharp contrast to those who don’t, as evident in civil society and it’s further moral degradation because it lacks the knowledge given by the Supreme One, and the FULL APPLICATION of the knowledge that benefits all Creation on this Planet.
March 23, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
MY logic is foolish?
You are so full of it, I won't bother with your silly stuff. Just one: Were YOU there when the earth began? um....no
March 23, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Run away when the heat is on?
I can defend my position and backed by science.
Not just based on faith, but reason and logic.
I suppose there were some, that thought Einstein’s theories were to far out, even Copernicus was not understood by his peers, but in no way did it diminish the truth of what they taught, just because some thought it nonsense.
It may take more time for some than others.
Some have the ability to understand and others don't.
That's not to say the ability can't be aquired, if one really wanted to.
March 23, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Laugh at yourself a little.
March 24, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Resistance, did you know that people like you are actually Intelligent Design's worst enemy?
Here's the thing: the whole Intelligent Design movement got started because McLean vs. Arkansas made it illegal to teach old-school Creation Science in public school classes, on the grounds that doing so amounted to the State advocating a particular religious viewpoint. Intelligent Design was developed as an argument that you could scientifically argue for the presence of an intelligent designer separate from any religious belief.
Thing is, every time someone tries to get Intelligent Design into the classroom on that basis, someone like you shoots their mouth off about "Getting God back into the classroom", which dooms the whole thing. Remember, when it comes to legally including something in the classroom, mentioning God (at least in a science class) = automatic fail. Especially because you can't effectively pretend that it's anything but the Christian God. After all, what does a generic Intelligent Designer have to do with a Bible quote?
That's why Intelligent Design will never make it into the classroom. Because it requires a lot of very religious people to not talk about God.
March 23, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the whole intelligent design movement.."
is a gross over-generalization without data to support its negative implication that no one else ever held an intelligent design view of their own that political partisans and partisan litigators of the culture war did not tell them to take.
I'm one counter-example and there are many, many more.
March 24, 2009 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you say so. But you're individuals. The history of the Intelligent Design movement is well known.
Besides, the point remains: people like Resistance are Intelligent Design's worst enemy, because they just can't stop themselves from crowing about "getting (the Christian) God back in the classroom", which blows the whole game.
March 24, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
There may be truth to that, but atheism also has case law calling it a 'religion.'
Let's recognize your observation elsewhere: several folks speak of religious/spiritual persons as backward or anti-evolutionary, yet these folks are survivors whose lives, mores and ethical conduct puts food on the table for a good many pontificating elites. They have also risen to this country's defense.
Knowing spiritual/religiosity is programmed in the brain of most folks (85-90% of the world's people) it must have something to do with our survival as human beings.
March 25, 2009 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we see what causes the waves on the sea? - it must be Poseidon waving his mighty arms. (end of inquiry)
Can we see what causes the sun to rise, travel across the sky, and set? - It must be Helios in his sun chariot. (end of inquiry)
The above two examples were actual deities that ancient people worshiped. That was, of course, until someone questioned those beliefs with logic and science.
Supernatural explanations of the natural world ends inquiry, hence the end of science.
I do not believe the shadow on my wall is a ghost or spirit - I believe it must be caused by something..a coat hanging...a branch outside the window. If I do not get up to investigate, I will remain ignorant of what is real.
Ignorance = Cowardice = easily manipulated masses
March 23, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some urban legend there.
Greece traded in Poseidon and Helios because it converted to Orthodox Christianity, not because Greeks were persuaded by scientists that the gods must be crazy.
March 24, 2009 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do intelligent design folks always insist that the counter-argument to their "theory" is that there is no God? That's not the argument.
That's mis-direction and reveals more about their real agenda; to insert God into the educational curriculum of America's public schools.
March 23, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point.
March 23, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dr. Monton is a philosopher, not a scientist. Scientists don't dispute evolution and it is irrelevant that a philosopher of science, whether or not an atheist, does dispute it.
March 23, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
My issue is that somehow folks make the leap from accepting "evolution" - which is a set of specific theories that are able to be tested - to saying it proves the assertion life magically erupted on earth due to unexplained random events.
It's the difference between scientific evolution and religious evolution. Atheists love to conflate the two so they can pretend their philosophy isn't a religion. But ultimately, those who believe they know the "correct" answer believe in something that they simply can not prove using science - therefore the assertions are unscientific and enter the realm of faith.
March 23, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but atheism isn't a "belief", it isn't a "disbelief" either. If a god doesn't exist, there can be no belief or disbelief - it simply does not exist.
March 23, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prove it.
March 23, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have to prove it, I'm not making any kind of claim for existance or non existance.
March 23, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 23, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The orbiting teapot and the flying spaghetti monster are both false analogies to the human mind and brain, approaching God. The circumstances of approach are much different.
In a way, both the OT and FSM are real creations existing at some level in Bertrand Russell's mind and whoever came up with the Pasta Monster. But their creation had a limited purpose. I see evidence of this purpose and of these writings, but I don't see the man writing it. Is it intelligent design to believe Russell wrote it?
Russell is one man..the great plurality of those seeking a higher intel. are generations, looking for truth. Russell creates to invalidate the approach of the many. Quite a difference.
Take those ephemeral creations and expand. What do you get?
Expand on what sort of mind imagines. Let's go beyond a human mind and consider the possibility of a greater mind that would have some things in common with the human mind. Then, test it.
Let's not give up on something because we don't like some of its proponents.
March 24, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intelligent design doesn't necessarily dispute evolution. It's the assumed origins it disputes.
March 23, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is BS. The entire premise behind evolution is that there are qualities in organisms that demonstrate a propensity towards surviving, and those qualities show up in succeeding generations because those organisms that have the qualities that are less successful die off.
In id, it is all pre-ordained by the genius "clockmaker."
There is no compromise between the two. One is wishful thinking; the other is science.
Do you really think anyone will believe this?
March 23, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've just restated my distinction. You spelled out the ID origin argument and then discussed the evolutionary process with succeeding generations, meaning, down the line.
March 23, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shell, hi. Philosophy (including empiricism) was a foundation for science. The philosopher of science is relevant to a wide range of problems.
March 24, 2009 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't throw rocks at the philosophers, puppy. there are lousy accredited scientists who dispute evolution as much as there are lousy accredited philosophers who do so.
That said, I've never understood the obsession people have with trying to dispute the theory of evolution. It's a lot more solid a theory than most scientific theories. In astrophysics, current models are about 300% off the empirical evidence. I say dark matter is God, and he weighs A LOT!
March 24, 2009 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points filling in some blanks.
The straw man everyone keeps raising here is that intelligent design thinkers must dispute evolution. They pretend we're in the Scopes trial.
Science has many a theory for those forces or unexplained things detected in relief or by absence. Call one of those thing "intelligence" and the philosophes of atheism start firing away.
I'd concede that if we go from "intelligence" behind the cosmos to God, we've taken a leap of positive faith. That doesn't mean intelligent design is false. Also, a big reason for not excluding intelligent design thinking from the scientific and cosmology fields is that revolutionary science may present new ways of discovering.
March 24, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Science has many a theory for those forces or unexplained things detected in relief or by absence. Call one of those thing "intelligence" and the philosophes of atheism start firing away."
Yes, but the fact that the only theory 'intelligent designers' are interested in happens to be evolution does suggest that it is religiously motivated rather than out of scientific honesty. I also don't think (as my example/joke should suggest) that 'God' is a useful theoretical placeholder in science. But that's a bigger question...
March 24, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not correct.
Intelligent designers are all over the map. You might have a look at how different the landscape is among non-biologists.
March 24, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
ok, I'll bite. Describe one positive scientific discovery made by intelligent designers, along with their empirical evidence.
March 24, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obey: I'll not speak for ID "movement" folks or litigants because I don't ID with that ID per se, and haven't spent lots of time with their viewpoint. I've spent time thinking of it on my own.
Life observed as-is suggests higher intelligence playing a central role. Accepting this has to do in part with cascading or exponentially more difficult probabilities that the cosmos should be as it is, and our lives in it intact. That we should make it given all that could go wrong versus what has gone well enough, is against the great odds.
As far as scientists who I believe would not exclude intelligent design and creation from their thinking about their studied subject matter, this non-exclusion doesn't mean these thoughts would interfere with scientific method aimed at material discoveries. It could provide 'leads' and suggest spin-off inquiries they would not otherwise entertain if they were closed to higher intelligence. Here are some names:
March 25, 2009 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some Names for Obey from:
http://english.sdaglobal.org/research/sctstbel.htm
Pasteur (1822-1895), dean of the faculty of sciences at Lille University, wrote:
"A bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to him."
Dr. Wernher von Braun (1912 -1977), NASA director and "father of the American Space Program."
"There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual Creator...in the world around us we can behold the obvious manifestation of the Divine plan of the Creator."
“What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the nervous conductors of the optical signals from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious mind can comprehend?” Wernher von Braun, foreword to From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo by Harold Hill (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1976), p. xi.
and, “It is as difficult for me to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” – Wernher von Braun
and."..the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator."
William Phillips, laser physicist and co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light said in a conference at Harvard University:
"Being an ordinary scientist and an ordinary Christian seems perfectly natural to me.” He also said, "I'm strongly of the conviction that God is personal, and this is the foundation of my faith."
Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., Director, United States National Human Genome Research Institute and the vast human genome project, said that “we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God,” His professional reward, he says, comes when he discovers something that "the creator knew ahead of time - that's one of the aspects of my existence I wouldn't trade for anything". lecture at:
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~winstan/gfcf/Francis%20Collins.mp3
and BBC article at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/human_genome/753711.stm
And some more from the same source:
Charles H. Townes
My candidate for the scientist of the century is Charlie Townes. (Of course, he is a friend of mine and there could be some bias here.) He did something fairly significant when he discovered the laser. He almost got a second Nobel Prize for the first observation of an interstellar molecule. He has written his autobiography, entitled Making Waves (a pun referring to the wavelike phenomenon of lasers).
An excerpt from his life's story:
You may well ask, "Where does God come into this," to me, that's almost a pointless question. If you believe in God at all, there is no particular "where"—He is always there, everywhere….To me, God is personal yet omnipresent. A great source of strength, He has made an enormous difference to me.
At eighty [years old], Charlie Townes still has a very active research program at Berkeley.
Arthur Schawlow
Schawlow won a Nobel Prize in physics, 1981, serves as physics professor at Stanford and identifies himself as a Christian. He makes this unusual statement which I think could only be made by a scientist:
We are fortunate to have the Bible, and especia