Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design The Scientific Alternative to Evolution
THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS QUARTERLY ^ | AUTUMN 2003 | William S. Harris and John H. Calvert

Posted on 09/13/2005 4:20:14 PM PDT by rob777

Sooner or later everyone asks the question, “Where do we come from?” The answer carries profound, life-molding implications. Until this question is answered we cannot solve another fundamental question that is key to ethics, religion, and the meaning of life (if any): “Are we here for a purpose?” There are two possible answers: the universe and life and its diversity—natural phenomena—are the product of 1) a combination of only natural laws and chance (the “naturalistic hypothesis)”; or 2) a combination of law, chance, and design—the activity of a mind or some form of intelligence that has the power to manipulate matter and energy (the “design hypothesis”). The latter produces purpose, the former does not.

The naturalistic hypothesis is supported by theories of chemical evolution (with respect to the origin of the universe and of life) and by Darwinian evolution (with respect to the origin of the diversity of life). The design hypothesis is supported by the purposeful characteristics of exceedingly complex natural systems that are frequently described as “fine tuned.” Each hypothesis is densely laden with philosophical and religious baggage, and clear thinking is required in order to separate the

science from the philosophy, the evidence from the implications, and reality from imagination.

...

(Excerpt) Read more at intelligentdesignnetwork.org ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: crevolist; herewegoagain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-219 next last

1 posted on 09/13/2005 4:20:16 PM PDT by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rob777
Oh, goody. Another crevo thread.

I wonder what will make this one different from the other 9000.

2 posted on 09/13/2005 4:23:26 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rob777
"Each hypothesis is densely laden with philosophical and religious baggage, and clear thinking is required in order to separate the science from the philosophy, the evidence from the implications, and reality from imagination."

And here is the problem. "Intelligent Design" simply meets none of the criteria for a scientific hypothesis. It is not capable of predicting or explaining new biological facts, which evolution does quite nicely.

Intelligent design is philosophy---NOT science, despite the fact that it uses "scientific-sounding" language.

3 posted on 09/13/2005 4:23:32 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rob777
I don't understand the need to push Intelligent Design.

Belief in God requires only faith.

Anyone who demands that science acquiese to their religious beliefs needs to work less on their science and more on their faith.

4 posted on 09/13/2005 4:23:37 PM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rob777

Liberals are living proof that the concept of Intelligent Design is a hoax...


5 posted on 09/13/2005 4:24:00 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

But you miss the fact that evolution makes philosophical assumptions just the same as Intelligent Design or Creation.


6 posted on 09/13/2005 4:25:16 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As long as liberalism and I exist, neither one of us is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Intelligent Design" simply meets none of the criteria for a scientific hypothesis. It is not capable of predicting or explaining new biological facts

How do you figure?
7 posted on 09/13/2005 4:26:37 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As long as liberalism and I exist, neither one of us is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr

Ping

I'm not taking the time to read a 35-page document just to see if it is ping-worthy, particularly since this is inherently ID and not creationist. Therefore, I am not breaking out my ping list for this one.


8 posted on 09/13/2005 4:27:40 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As long as liberalism and I exist, neither one of us is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
But you miss the fact that evolution makes philosophical assumptions...

Nonsense. Evolution neither rules in nor rules out the existence of God.

Once again: true belief in God demands faith, not proof. Anyone who demands proof should examine why they even bother professing a belief in God.

9 posted on 09/13/2005 4:30:07 PM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Dave, still waiting to hear from you on the IDist response to the biogeography problem (a science problem, not a philosophical problem):

The biogeography problem (post #95)

The IDist trilemma with respect to the biogeography problem (post #98)

10 posted on 09/13/2005 4:35:50 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
I don't understand the need to push Intelligent Design.

Belief in God requires only faith.





Some of its proponents push the theory for reasons that have nothing to do with a belief in God. For them, it is the intellectual dissatisfaction with a purely naturalistic theory of the origins of the universe and the coming about of life as we know it. I do not understand why the "bogeyman" of religion always has to be invoked whenever one postulates that there is more at work here than
chance and physical laws. The "Teleological" argument is not based on a religious assumption, but a philosophical one. Religion relies on direct, experiencial revelation and does not need to speculate from an observed effect to an unseen cause.
11 posted on 09/13/2005 4:40:13 PM PDT by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

But here you are - just can't resist. lol


12 posted on 09/13/2005 4:43:14 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

It certainly rules out Genesis.


13 posted on 09/13/2005 4:44:30 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Snarks, could you try not to be bored so much? ;-)

I'm working on a large response to an unprecedented amount of responses to the rebuttal I authored. Be patient. It's one against thirty. The odds are to my liking. *Cracks knuckles*


14 posted on 09/13/2005 4:44:37 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As long as liberalism and I exist, neither one of us is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Who designed the Designer? It's like asking what came before the Big Bang, after all.


15 posted on 09/13/2005 4:46:37 PM PDT by slightlyovertaxed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
"But you miss the fact that evolution makes philosophical assumptions..."

Nonsense. Evolution neither rules in nor rules out the existence of God.






Philosophical assumptions are not limited to speculating on the existence of God. Evolution "Theory" makes assumptions about the mechanisms of evolution that are historical and philosophical in nature, rather than merely empirical.
16 posted on 09/13/2005 4:50:30 PM PDT by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

(smile) I'll try to resist my nature a while longer, then, Dave. I'd say 'good luck', but you don't believe in luck...


17 posted on 09/13/2005 4:51:37 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: slightlyovertaxed

Look at it this way. It's easy to imagine God never ending (dying), right? Conversely, look at it as if God never had a beginning either. It is beyond human grasp, because everything we see had a genesis, but that is the way I look at it.


18 posted on 09/13/2005 4:56:45 PM PDT by Tim Long (Conservatism: It's the choice of a smart generation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: Wonder Warthog
And here is the problem. "Intelligent Design" simply meets none of the criteria for a scientific hypothesis. It is not capable of predicting or explaining new biological facts, which evolution does quite nicely.

Regardless of the truth or falsity of the hypothesis of intelligent design, your statement is demonstrably false.

For example, if your statement were correct, then it would have been impossible for humans to breed plants or animals. But of course humans have been able to breed plants and animals to meet specific "design criteria." In that realm we have literally thousands of examples where a) the explanation is intelligent design, and b) the predictive requirement is met by the fact that the breeders achieved their goals.

Another example is the production of human insulin by recombinant DNA techniques. The end result is bacteria or yeast that produce human insulin -- the predicted result, and again explained by intelligent design.

Thus we see that in specific cases that ID does in fact explain new biological facts. Further, the existence of design criteria (which were met in practice) satisfies the criterion of predictability.

Based on your criteria and actual examples, we must conclude that Intelligent Design is a valid theory. (The relevant sense of "valid" is 2 a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful [a valid theory] b : logically correct [a valid argument] [valid inference]).

Of course, to propose a valid hypothesis is not the same thing as verifying (i.e., to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of) that hypothesis. A person who puts forth an ID hypothesis is required to provide tests and data to support the claim.

At this point, however, we're faced not with a scientific problem, but rather a philosophical one.

If we apply your criteria more broadly, it seems to be the case that engineering in general does not meet your criteria for a scientific hypothesis. And perhaps that's accurate: engineering makes extensive use of scientific principles, but it is not possible to explain or predict the results of an engineering effort in the manner you're demanding for the development of life -- that is, using testable hypothesis about naturalistic processes. "Predictability" resides in the minds of the engineers, not in any fundamental natural processes. Moreover, the characteristics of an engineered object are often chosen for aesthetic as well as practical reasons.

The philosophical questions center around this disconnect between science and engineering.

20 posted on 09/13/2005 4:59:39 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-219 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson