Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pz · 12-29-2002, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darwin's Beagle
Whether or not one considers it a "theory" depends ultimately upon semantics. I suppose I am a little more lenient with the terminology than you. ID purports to explain a certain type of complexity. It purports to have justification for that belief. To me, that is enough to grant it the title of "theory", just as I grant Spontaneous Generation (the maggots-from-dead-meat-type) and "space-occupying ether" the titles of "theories".

This is an invalid degradation of a word with grand and significant meaning within science. This isn't just semantics. In science, which is the appropriate context since that is where IDists want to place this idea, a theory is an idea that integrates a broad range of data and has significant explanatory power. Explanatory power does not mean foisting off the answer on some unobserved super-being. It means that it must provide a useful framework for further exploration of the phenomena.

Claiming that ID fits under the rubric of a theory is the same error that creationists make when they incorrectly dismiss evolution because it is "just a theory", or the ones who think "god did it" is the best explanation by the criterion of Occam's Razor. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms and concepts.

Quote:

However, I do not grant that there is ANY substance behind the theory. Without a reasonable intelligence and without a mechanism behind the creation ID is essentially useless.

Which is why it is not a theory. Let's not dignify it with an undeserved title.

Darwin's Beagle · 12-29-2002, 08:42 PM

It is a strange feeling to have to defend an idea that I normally spend quite a bit of time arguing against. Oh well, so be it.

pz quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Darwin's Beagle
Whether or not one considers it a "theory" depends ultimately upon semantics. I suppose I am a little more lenient with the terminology than you. ID purports to explain a certain type of complexity. It purports to have justification for that belief. To me, that is enough to grant it the title of "theory", just as I grant Spontaneous Generation (the maggots-from-dead-meat-type) and "space-occupying ether" the titles of "theories".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an invalid degradation of a word with grand and significant meaning within science. This isn't just semantics. In science, which is the appropriate context since that is where IDists want to place this idea, a theory is an idea that integrates a broad range of data and has significant explanatory power. Explanatory power does not mean foisting off the answer on some unobserved super-being. It means that it must provide a useful framework for further exploration of the phenomena.

DB==
What you are describing is a GOOD theory. I doubt if we disagree that NeoDarwinian evolutionary theory is a good theory. I say that ID is a BAD theory. You say it isn't even a theory. Therein lies our disagreement.

Reread what you wrote above. You use words like "broad range of data", "significant explanatory power", and "useful framework for further exploration". These are words that are open to individual interpretation. Therefore, I respectfully disagree that the crux of the matter is not semantic.

ID purports to explain the origin of certain types of complexity (the exact type of complexity differs between different ID proponents). I'm not even convinced that there really IS such a thing as IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY or COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION in nature, but if there is then ID could explain it (I also think normal evolutionary mechanisms could probably explain it as well, but that is irrelevant at the moment). Both Behe and Dembski give examples of observations that they insist are explanable by ID. Does this fit in with the idea of "broad range of data"? Does it have "significant explanatory power? The answer depends on where your philosophical desires are. Behe and Dembski would say "yes", I gather you would say "no". I would say the observations that they claim are flawed. Even though flawed it still IMHO constitutes a theory ... a BAD theory, but still a theory. Just like Spontaneous Generation is a BAD theory.

Is ID a "useful framework for further exploration"? I don't think so, but then again I don't think Spontaneous Generation is either. William Dembski who seems to be actively devoting his whole life to it would disagree (at least about the ID part).

pz==
Claiming that ID fits under the rubric of a theory is the same error that creationists make when they incorrectly dismiss evolution because it is "just a theory", or the ones who think "god did it" is the best explanation by the criterion of Occam's Razor. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms and concepts.

DB=
People who incorrectly dismiss evolution because it is "just a theory" do so because they do not understand the scope of the word. I think people who dismiss ID as a theory probably miss the scope of the word as well.

There is no need to use creationist tactics to dismantle ID. I'll grant it the title of "theory". I'll also point out its short-comings. I'll point out that there is active avoidance of identifying the designer, while evolutionary theory has a viable candidate in natural selection. I'll point out that there is active avoidance of trying to present a mechanism for the intelligent design. I'll point out that neither CSI nor IC have a definition that can be used to determine its existance in advance. After all, this is science and ultimately in science the winner is based upon the strength of the evidence. That is my preferred way to attack ID.

pz==
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, I do not grant that there is ANY substance behind the theory. Without a reasonable intelligence and without a mechanism behind the creation ID is essentially useless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is why it is not a theory. Let's not dignify it with an undeserved title.

DB=
LOL, this reminds me of the Behe's response to the paper in J. Theor. Biol. by Ussery (sp?) & someone else a couple of years ago (sorry, I'm too tired and sleepy at the moment to look it up). That paper thoroughly trashed Behe's argument. Behe's web article concerning the paper was that "see, ID HAS now made a contribution to the literature!".

My own personal view is that when you trash an idea you do not dignify it. My saying that while it may be a theory, it is a bad theory does not dignify it. I am not so naive to think that people with less than honest motives might try and say, it is an admittedly valid theory and should therefore be taught alongside evolution in public schools. I think science can successfully argue against it by saying there are plenty of theories out there we do not teach because the evidence does not support it and show that ID is one of those.

In short, I do not think the right way to argue against ID is to brush it off as though it is not worthy of even casual thought. I think this plays into the ID proponents hand for claiming scientific bias against them. I think the right way is to demonstrate why it is indeed a poor theory. Show what is missing -- no designer, no mechanism. And why it is missing -- active avoidance on the part of the ID proponents. Show that without these vital components then ALL that ID can possibly do is quibble with evolutionary mechanisms which HAVE been tested. Again, in the end the theory with the best evidentiary support will win out.

DNAunion · 01-06-2003, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Darwin's Beagle: I believe the core of ID theory is as follows:

There are things in the universe that show complexity that could not have arisen by natural means, thus, it must have arisen by some type of directing intelligence.

DNAunion: Some IDists might have more than one objection to that statement, but I'll address only one: the certainty expressed. Although many IDists may hold the hard line you offered, I think a better phrasing would be...

There are some things in the universe that show such complexity that it appears they could not have arisen by natural means alone, thus, the inference to the best explanation is that some type of directing intelligence was involved.

DNAunion · 01-06-2003, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Bubba: ID theory seems to be one thing to me, and one thing only-designed to deny common descent ...

DNAunion: Odd then that Behe explicitly stated in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box that he accepts common descent.

pz · 01-06-2003, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion
DNAunion: Odd then that Behe explicitly stated in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box that he accepts common descent.

Behe often says one thing in one place, and something completely different in another.

Try pinning him down on the issue of human origins. He suddenly starts waffling. Common descent is one of those ideas that isn't exactly amenable to partial acceptance -- if you suggest that one lineage does not share a common origin with others, then you don't accept common descent.

DNAunion · 01-06-2003, 06:18 PM

Quote:

pz: Try pinning [Behe] down on the issue of human origins. He suddenly starts waffling.

DNAunion: I thought I remembered seeing it posted here a couple of times that Behe accepts the "common descent of man". Can't remember offhand but it was someone (Miller?) warning Creationists that Behe doesn't see things their way: he was surprised by Behe's stance. Ring a bell to anyone?

If I remember correctly, Behe accepts common descent of all life forms, including man...he just doesn't think that it was all the result of purely natural processes. Common descent and its mechanism can be two different things. For example, humans created new dog breeds and vegetables: intelligence directing evolution. Yet even those organisms are still included in common descent because there is no break in the lineage: each descended from a "parent" and is not the product of special creation. Taking this a step further, if one believes that God directed the evolutionary origin of humans - as opposed to having specially created humans - then that person would accept common descent of man.

beyelzu · 01-06-2003, 07:08 PM

it seems to me that id is much like creation science. they are both theistic attempts to force the idea of a god into classrooms. by arguing that creationism or intelligent design are just alternative theories to evolution then they should be included in school curriculum. and that is the reason that a person shouldn't call intelligent design a theory.

RBH · 01-06-2003, 08:03 PM

DNAUnion wrote

Quote:

There are some things in the universe that show such complexity that it appears they could not have arisen by natural means alone, thus, the inference to the best explanation is that some type of directing intelligence was involved.

But there is no such thing as an "ID explanation" in the ID literature. There is an attribution of a property, a label - "This thing was designed by an intelligent agency" - but there ain't no explanation. There are no hypotheses about the nature, number, methods, or goals of the intelligent agency. I've read a fair amount of ID stuff, and I have never seen an explanation that amounts to any more than "This was designed." Attributing the property "designed" to an object, entity, process or relationship doesn't explain anything: it is what is to be explained.

RBH

Azathoth · 01-07-2003, 04:54 PM

What I can't understand,is how the proponents of this ID "theory" plan on using that theory to accomplish anything.

Hypothetically,let's pretend that as of right now they are completely successful.That by tomorrow,there's not one person who believes evolution is the mechanism for change in organisms.

Now what?They have nothing,other than the assertion that some intelligent agency created life.How would research be done past that point?I see no way that it can,and the proponents of ID must see this,too.

Do they really care about finding anything at all,or is it just an attempt to attack a point of view that goes against their theological beliefs?I suspect that is the case.

Doubting Didymus · 01-07-2003, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Azathoth

Hypothetically,let's pretend that as of right now they are completely successful....

Now what?They have nothing,other than the assertion that some intelligent agency created life.How would research be done past that point?I see no way that it can,and the proponents of ID must see this,too.

Personally, I wouldn't mind.

If it WERE true that evolution was false, and evidence exists for the intelligent design of organisms then I would have no problems with the fact that no more research can be done. What's the alternative? Do heaps more research on a topic now known to be untrue?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-29-2002, 08:42 PM	#32
Darwin's Beagle Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 62	It is a strange feeling to have to defend an idea that I normally spend quite a bit of time arguing against. Oh well, so be it. pz quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Darwin's Beagle Whether or not one considers it a "theory" depends ultimately upon semantics. I suppose I am a little more lenient with the terminology than you. ID purports to explain a certain type of complexity. It purports to have justification for that belief. To me, that is enough to grant it the title of "theory", just as I grant Spontaneous Generation (the maggots-from-dead-meat-type) and "space-occupying ether" the titles of "theories". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is an invalid degradation of a word with grand and significant meaning within science. This isn't just semantics. In science, which is the appropriate context since that is where IDists want to place this idea, a theory is an idea that integrates a broad range of data and has significant explanatory power. Explanatory power does not mean foisting off the answer on some unobserved super-being. It means that it must provide a useful framework for further exploration of the phenomena. DB== What you are describing is a GOOD theory. I doubt if we disagree that NeoDarwinian evolutionary theory is a good theory. I say that ID is a BAD theory. You say it isn't even a theory. Therein lies our disagreement. Reread what you wrote above. You use words like "broad range of data", "significant explanatory power", and "useful framework for further exploration". These are words that are open to individual interpretation. Therefore, I respectfully disagree that the crux of the matter is not semantic. ID purports to explain the origin of certain types of complexity (the exact type of complexity differs between different ID proponents). I'm not even convinced that there really IS such a thing as IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY or COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION in nature, but if there is then ID could explain it (I also think normal evolutionary mechanisms could probably explain it as well, but that is irrelevant at the moment). Both Behe and Dembski give examples of observations that they insist are explanable by ID. Does this fit in with the idea of "broad range of data"? Does it have "significant explanatory power? The answer depends on where your philosophical desires are. Behe and Dembski would say "yes", I gather you would say "no". I would say the observations that they claim are flawed. Even though flawed it still IMHO constitutes a theory ... a BAD theory, but still a theory. Just like Spontaneous Generation is a BAD theory. Is ID a "useful framework for further exploration"? I don't think so, but then again I don't think Spontaneous Generation is either. William Dembski who seems to be actively devoting his whole life to it would disagree (at least about the ID part). pz== Claiming that ID fits under the rubric of a theory is the same error that creationists make when they incorrectly dismiss evolution because it is "just a theory", or the ones who think "god did it" is the best explanation by the criterion of Occam's Razor. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms and concepts. DB= People who incorrectly dismiss evolution because it is "just a theory" do so because they do not understand the scope of the word. I think people who dismiss ID as a theory probably miss the scope of the word as well. There is no need to use creationist tactics to dismantle ID. I'll grant it the title of "theory". I'll also point out its short-comings. I'll point out that there is active avoidance of identifying the designer, while evolutionary theory has a viable candidate in natural selection. I'll point out that there is active avoidance of trying to present a mechanism for the intelligent design. I'll point out that neither CSI nor IC have a definition that can be used to determine its existance in advance. After all, this is science and ultimately in science the winner is based upon the strength of the evidence. That is my preferred way to attack ID. pz== quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, I do not grant that there is ANY substance behind the theory. Without a reasonable intelligence and without a mechanism behind the creation ID is essentially useless. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which is why it is not a theory. Let's not dignify it with an undeserved title. DB= LOL, this reminds me of the Behe's response to the paper in J. Theor. Biol. by Ussery (sp?) & someone else a couple of years ago (sorry, I'm too tired and sleepy at the moment to look it up). That paper thoroughly trashed Behe's argument. Behe's web article concerning the paper was that "see, ID HAS now made a contribution to the literature!". My own personal view is that when you trash an idea you do not dignify it. My saying that while it may be a theory, it is a bad theory does not dignify it. I am not so naive to think that people with less than honest motives might try and say, it is an admittedly valid theory and should therefore be taught alongside evolution in public schools. I think science can successfully argue against it by saying there are plenty of theories out there we do not teach because the evidence does not support it and show that ID is one of those. In short, I do not think the right way to argue against ID is to brush it off as though it is not worthy of even casual thought. I think this plays into the ID proponents hand for claiming scientific bias against them. I think the right way is to demonstrate why it is indeed a poor theory. Show what is missing -- no designer, no mechanism. And why it is missing -- active avoidance on the part of the ID proponents. Show that without these vital components then ALL that ID can possibly do is quibble with evolutionary mechanisms which HAVE been tested. Again, in the end the theory with the best evidentiary support will win out.

01-06-2003, 07:08 PM	#37
beyelzu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: the peach state ga I am a metaphysical naturalist Posts: 2,869	it seems to me that id is much like creation science. they are both theistic attempts to force the idea of a god into classrooms. by arguing that creationism or intelligent design are just alternative theories to evolution then they should be included in school curriculum. and that is the reason that a person shouldn't call intelligent design a theory.

01-07-2003, 04:54 PM	#39
Azathoth Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: The centre of infinity Posts: 1,181	What I can't understand,is how the proponents of this ID "theory" plan on using that theory to accomplish anything. Hypothetically,let's pretend that as of right now they are completely successful.That by tomorrow,there's not one person who believes evolution is the mechanism for change in organisms. Now what?They have nothing,other than the assertion that some intelligent agency created life.How would research be done past that point?I see no way that it can,and the proponents of ID must see this,too. Do they really care about finding anything at all,or is it just an attempt to attack a point of view that goes against their theological beliefs?I suspect that is the case.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.