E_muse

Bubba recently posted asking for evidence of Intelligent Design. Unfortunately the topic has now been closed but I thought it might be helpful to provide a link to a relevant article that can subsequently be critiqued by all.

The following article is entitled Post-Agnostic Science: How Physics Is Reviving The Argument From Design and is written by Robert C Koons, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Texas. The article can be found <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/svsu.html" target="_blank"> HERE</a>.

Happy reading...

pz

Bleh. It's philosophy, and poor philosophy at that (see <a href="http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html" target="_blank">this site</a> for just one example of a rebuttal to the old anthropic principle argument). It's not evidence at all.

E_muse

Well pz, it is the intention of this site to promote the avid pursuit of philosophy as well as science and so the fact that it is based around a philosphical idea means little.

Also, it is intended as a launch pad in order that the topic that Bubba wished to discuss is actually discussed. I'm not saying that it is adequate in itself.

However, I'll read the article you've supplied.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

CALDONIA

From what I have read about Intelligent Design, it is a negative argument. Evolution is an insufficient explanation for 'complexity' and therefore Intelligent Design is "proved." It poses a false choice and offers simplistic reasoning.

Xeluan

Can we further define the purposes of this thread as scientific evidence for ID. Not evolution bashing nor philosophical tangents.

What research have ID scientists done and how does it support their favoured ID hypothesis?

Xeluan

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Xeluan ]</p>

Principia

Here is, imo, the offending paragraph/conclusion of Koons' thesis:
It is Koons' addition of his own information (or perhaps ignorance?) that feeds this 'revival' of the argument from design.
EDIT: Actually, I like the preceding section even better:
No, I guess "God" is not an "ad hoc" explanation to scientists. And gee, I guess the empirical evidence for God's existence is just astounding.
Well, no. Koons has not shown that the veracity of the many-universes model is actually dependent on the existence of God. For even if the hypothesis of MU is true, one can still posit a God. In other words, Koons sets up a false dichotomy here. But then if MU were true, Occam's razor is just that much more applicable to requiring any god.

In point of fact, Koons recognizes my very argument:
Ah, the 'everything points to God' argument. I love it for all of the self-inconsistencies it brings out.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

Albion

Oh, good, an untestable explanation that explains everything and its stellar opposite. And he calls it science?

E_muse

Firstly, the purpose of this thread is in response to the following request from Bubba:

I've provided the arguement from Koons for criticism. I'm sure people can do this by whatever means they wish. However, Koons' comments do not concern evolutionary theory but physics.

Lastly, the objective of this site is to "encourage the avid pursuit of philosophy and the scientific enterprise" so I cannot see where there would be any justification in limiting the discussion to science only. You will also notice that we are under the heading, "Philosophical Forums".

I personally feel that perhaps this should have been posted in EoG as Bubba is not dictating that any evidence must come from biology but he decided to post here and it seems that this is O.K.

However, any discussion around this is off-topic and not for this thread which is the arguement made by Koons.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

E_muse

Which is why I've provided an arguement that is based around physics and not biology.

Steven Carr

Isn't Koon's argument the old, tired one that God was lucky that there existed a combination of physical values that allowed him to create a universe, and if this combination had not existed, then God would not have been able to create a universe?

Which immediately raises the question :- How was God able to find values of these constants which just happened to allow these seemingly contradictory constraints to be satsified?

After all, a priori, we might expect that the only value of G which allowed stars to form might well also have been too strong or weak to allow inflation to occur.

God must have sighed a big sigh of relief that this turned out not to be the case.

In short, saying that it is puzzling why there is a solution, rather than no solution, is not solved by positing somebody who can solve the puzzle. It does not explain why there is a solution, rather than no solution.