Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design

The Royal Society ^ | 11 Apr 2006 | Staff (press release)

[Fester Chugabrew]

How is "intelligent design" science?

In the same way a book is representative of its author. You seek a denominative equality between the word "intelligent design" and "science" when the two are hardly synonymous in the first place.

Evolution is not science in the strict sense either. It is a hopeful, multifaceted reconstruction of history based upon extrapolations and conjecture from the physical world. Nevertheless it does engage science in support of its assumptions, not unlike astrologers who invoke the stars in support of their predictions.

Science is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena," none of which can take place without intelligibility, intelligence, and design. Intelligent design is one of many deductive and inductive approaches to science. It is not to be identified coterminously with science.

You apparently live under the delusion that science can take place devoid of philosophies, basic assumptions, and shaping principles. That cannot happen any more than one can enjoy life as a corpse. Just because evolution operates under basic assumptions is no reason to say outright "it is not science." But it ought to admit honestly and outright what those assumptions are.

[Dimensio]

You apparently live under the delusion that science can take place devoid of philosophies, basic assumptions, and shaping principles.

I am not. Science operates under the basic assumption that the fundamental properties do not change. You seek to introduce additional assumptions without justification.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Science operates under the basic assumption that the fundamental properties do not change.

The biblical texts attest to a Creator that does not change. It is no surprise the properties of nature are not willy nilly. If they were we could not do science in the first place.

[Dimensio]

The biblical texts attest to a Creator that does not change. It is no surprise the properties of nature are not willy nilly.

You are attempting to posit an assumption of your conclusion as a supporting argument for your claim. This is a logical fallacy.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You are attempting to posit an assumption of your conclusion as a supporting argument for your claim.

It's called an axiom. A starting point. Yes, it could be wrong. No it is not scientifically provable. Do you realize you do the same thing when you attribute the presence of organized matter performing specific functions to anything but intelligent design or agents? It's okay. At some point we all have to assume a conclusion and indulge what is a "logical fallacy," namely a tautology. I don't care to fault you for it, and I know you are capable of sound logic.

[Dimensio]

Do you realize you do the same thing when you attribute the presence of organized matter performing specific functions to anything but intelligent design or agents?

I do not make such an attribution. I draw no conclusions on the matter.

[Fester Chugabrew]

That's a good way to be, and yet I sense you are not comfortable in accepting the mention of intelligent design in a scientific context, even though it might fit the paradigm better than some other general pretext.

[Dimensio]

That's a good way to be, and yet I sense you are not comfortable in accepting the mention of intelligent design in a scientific context, even though it might fit the paradigm better than some other general pretext.

I am not comfortable in accepting Intelligent Design in a scientific context because thus far it has not demonstrated itself to be scientific. Also, you have not demonstrated that the philosophy that you espouse -- which is not Intelligent Design -- is scientific.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I am not comfortable in accepting Intelligent Design in a scientific context because thus far it has not demonstrated itself to be scientific.

There you go assuming a conclusion again. There is a patent inequity in waving off intelligent design as "not scientific" when in fact it lays a foundation for quantifying and describing an intelligible universe, yet at the same time suggesting it is more scientific to substitute "nature" for God. Of course, I have no reason to expect equitable considerations from those who reject the authority and accuracy of the biblical texts, so you are, by nature, on your own mark.

[newguy357]

Thanks for the clarification. I am not interested in debating exactly how far Newton's heresies went--regardless, despite any number of heresies, there is no doubt that he was devoutly religious and in no way an atheist.

[Dimensio]

There you go assuming a conclusion again.

What conclusion am I assuming?

There you go assuming a conclusion again. There is a patent inequity in waving off intelligent design as "not scientific" when in fact it lays a foundation for quantifying and describing an intelligible universe, yet at the same time suggesting it is more scientific to substitute "nature" for God.

To which "God", out of the thousands of deity constructs worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why, and what has a "God" to do with Intelligent Design?

Of course, I have no reason to expect equitable considerations from those who reject the authority and accuracy of the biblical texts, so you are, by nature, on your own mark.

< For what reason should I accept the authority and accuracy of Biblical texts?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your testimony, hosepipe! Indeed, we are born again into a new reality which cannot be described by mere language to those who have not yet joined us.

[Fester Chugabrew]

To which "God" . . . do you refer . . . ?

The One Who inspired the biblical texts. Why? Because He is the One Who is attested as the Creator and sustainer of everything science has at hand to observe, quantify, and explain, plus much that will remain beyond the purview of science until such time as it is revealed.

For what reason should I accept the authority and accuracy of Biblical texts?

It seems apparent that you should not. Otherwise you would. It is not my prerogative to prescribe where you place your trust, or from what source you ultimately seek knowledge and certainty. The biblical texts say what they say, and I take them to be true. They speak of an intelligently created and sustained heaven and earth. Lo and behold, I have been born into a world replete with heaven, earth, and organized matter performing specific functions down to the tiniest details of particle matter.

The same text for you, for whatever reason, does not meet with your approval. Fine. Far be it from me to tell you why you should or should not take the position you do. It is simply your nature to be that way. This, too, has been addressed by the biblical texts and adds further veracity to their claim, but I hardly expect you to understand this or agree.

[Dimensio]

The One Who inspired the biblical texts. Why? Because He is the One Who is attested as the Creator and sustainer of everything science has at hand to observe, quantify, and explain, plus much that will remain beyond the purview of science until such time as it is revealed.

Merely describing the deity does not demonstrate that said deity exists, or that your description is accurate. Why should I believe your specific claims?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Merely describing nature does not demonstrate that said nature exists, or that your description is accurate. What's your point?

[Dimensio]

Merely describing nature does not demonstrate that said nature exists, or that your description is accurate. What's your point?

Descriptions of nature are discriptions of direct observations. The explanations for what occurs may be inaccurate, but the events themselves are directly observable.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Descriptions of nature are discriptions of direct observations.

Descriptions of organized matter performing specific functions are descriptions of direct observations. To infer intelligent design from these observations is no more, and no less, "scientific" than to infer some other cause or agent, including chance.

[Dimensio]

Descriptions of organized matter performing specific functions are descriptions of direct observations. To infer intelligent design from these observations is no more, and no less, "scientific" than to infer some other cause or agent, including chance.

Science makes no such inferences. Science merely observes the patterns and describes them. It makes no statements regarding the fundamental reason that the patterns exist as they do. It claims "chance" as a cause no more than it claims "intelligent designer".

[Fester Chugabrew]

[Science] makes no statements regarding the fundamental reason that the patterns exist as they do.

Hahahaha! Science cannot happen without consideration for fundamental reasons. In this case the reason submitted by your version of science is "nature." So, you and the fellows who coincide with your opinion essentially throw up your hands in defeat as if it is wholly beyond human reason and comprehension to attribute organized matter performing specific functions to anything specific in itself. Just "nature did it."

I'm okay with that. Really. At least to a degree. It is when folks begin to think such a point of view is the only one acceptable by law that I get upset. (Yes, my knickers get twisted over the issue.) The reason is we live in a free republic; a place where all ideas that touch upon science should be encouraged and debated everywhere, even in public schools; even if they happen to impinge upon what we tend to call "religion."

You may not believe it, but I am the last person to advocate sectarian religious teaching in public schools. In fact, I am the last person to advocate public schools in general because they tend to advocate the sectarian establishment of atheistic principles.

[Dimensio]

Science cannot happen without consideration for fundamental reasons. In this case the reason submitted by your version of science is "nature."

This is incorrect. Science attempts to explain observations within nature. If the fundamental properties of the universe -- that there appear to be consistent "laws" -- are the result of an intelligent entity, then science thus far has not determined this and may not be able to determine this. This does not mean that science asserts that an intelligent agent is not responsible.