...I think this "theory" is clearly more empirically justified than the pervailing intelligent design...lets get it in those HS science classes (the combat against secular humanism begins with us!)!

ebola

"Incompetent Design Theory"

Hey what's extremely haphazard design...?

Is it in the art field? It says design so I was thinking it was. I'm a designer. I haven't heard of that one.

Did you design the universe?
If so, you got some 'splainin' to do... :)

ebola

naturalsusta....ummmmm...ebola is making fun of the "Intelligent Design" theory, which is being taught in some hs science classrooms today. You might want to read up on current events.

I like the habit our administration has of renaming things when they become problematic. GWOT=SAVE and creationism now=Intelligent Design. He (GWB) was responsible for coining that phrase wasn't he?

I might have to try this in my personal life.

Intelligent Design is actually slightly different from Creationism. Creationism is based very much on a fairly literal reading of Genesis, and the Creator is clearly the God of the Isrealites, whereas in Intelligent Design Theory the Designer/s is not named and there is actually very little interest in attempting to study the Designer/s. Which of course shows that Intelligent Design isn't really science, because there is no such thing as a lack of curiousity in science. You'd think Intelligent Design "scientists" would be keenly interested in the Designer/s (I sure am!!) - but no, they aren't.

Ludi, maybe Intelligent Design scientists are not pursuing questions on the nature of the Designer because those are questions outside the realm of science-as-we-know-it?

>>naturalsusta....ummmmm...ebola is making fun of the "Intelligent Design" theory, which is being taught in some hs science classrooms today. You might want to read up on current events.>>

Granted, the joke wasn't very good... :)

>> He (GWB) was responsible for coining that phrase wasn't he?>>

Actually, I'm pretty sure he wasn't. I read a book in favor of intelligent design (written by a biochemist, focusing on irreducible complexity), using that terminology, in 2000 or so.

>>Ludi, maybe Intelligent Design scientists are not pursuing questions on the nature of the Designer because those are questions outside the realm of science-as-we-know-it?>>

Correct, or rather science insofar as it can be science...well, maybe not. Could a god be empirically evident? What would constitute evidence of its/her/his disconfirmation?

ebola

Ludi, maybe Intelligent Design scientists are not pursuing questions on the nature of the Designer because those are questions outside the realm of science-as-we-know-it?


Then Intelligent Design is not a science. There is no aspect of science that is outside the realm of science. Aspects of existence outside the realm of science fall into other disciplines such as philosophy and religion. For instance, in physics, you cannot posit a particle or phenomenon that exists "outside the realm of science." There may be a particle or phenomenon that exists beyond our ability to study it using current equipment, but even in that case it will still be theorized about. The Designer/s is not even theorized about in Intelligent Design, as a rule, except to claim that the Designer/s is intelligent.

Ludi, what do you want them to do, then? Decide that all I.D. scientists must either empirically study the nature of a Designer, or become atheists?

And, since you claimed that I.D. theorizers claim that the Designer is intelligent and do not explore other aspects of the nature of the Designer, would you provide me with some links that support that idea? Obviously you cannot prove a universal negative. I'd just be interested in reading some of the same things you apparently have.

Ludi, what do you want them to do, then? Decide that all I.D. scientists must either empirically study the nature of a Designer, or become atheists?

ID scientists (or anyone else for that matter) can believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make it science. Their personal beliefs have no bearing on what constitutes science. (which I hardly believe that ID qualifies as psuedo-science even, which is why the term 'creation science' drives me crazy!)

>>Ludi, what do you want them to do, then? Decide that all I.D. scientists must either empirically study the nature of a Designer, or become atheists?>>

I don't think Ludi was saying that. Rather, the intelligent design scientist can point to flaws in current theories and bodies of evidence that shed doubt on, for example, current accounts of organogenesis. Argument FOR intelligent design, however, is beyond the scope of science (but is not necessarily discongruent with science either).

A scientist is free to hold any belief that is congruent with the body of scientific theory and measurement that she accepts. That is, scientists are not solely scientists. I should also add that the majority of natural scientists (including biologists) are religious. Religiousity is lowest among social scientists, who take on religion itself as an object of study.

ebola

Goodness, no! Intelligent Design "scientists" don't need to become atheists! However, if the Designer falls outside the realm of science, then the study of Intelligent Design falls outside the realm of science, and falls instead into the realm of philosophy and religion. A science doesn't reject study of the cause or origin of natural processes. If we eliminate the study of the Intelligence inherent in Intelligent Design, and we eliminate the Designer/s, then we have nothing left to study scientifically. ID "scientists" tend to spend their time poking holes in Evolutionary Theory, usually rather badly.

Ebola, I understand that religious belief is lowest among biologists, but I suppose this might depend on which survey you've seen! Religious beliefs are highest among theoretical physicists, or so I've read. :)

Most of what I know about ID I learn from my husband, who's quite interested in it. He reads an ID forum, but I don't know the URL. I'll try to find out from him.

Here's a link from the American Museum of Natural History to some comments about ID from ID proponents/"scientists" and then comments about their comments by mainstream (or "real") scientists:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

>>Ebola, I understand that religious belief is lowest among biologists, but I suppose this might depend on which survey you've seen! Religious beliefs are highest among theoretical physicists, or so I've read. >>

You mean among natural scientists?

ebola

>>Ebola, I understand that religious belief is lowest among biologists, but I suppose this might depend on which survey you've seen! Religious beliefs are highest among theoretical physicists, or so I've read. >>

You mean among natural scientists?

ebola


Yes, sorry, that was unclear of me, mixing physical and natural scientists.

okay....i just had those pesky social scientists (one being me...eventually...maybe) lurking in the back of my head.

Intelligent Design is actually slightly different from Creationism. Creationism is based very much on a fairly literal reading of Genesis, and the Creator is clearly the God of the Isrealites, whereas in Intelligent Design Theory the Designer/s is not named and there is actually very little interest in attempting to study the Designer/s. Which of course shows that Intelligent Design isn't really science, because there is no such thing as a lack of curiousity in science. You'd think Intelligent Design "scientists" would be keenly interested in the Designer/s (I sure am!!) - but no, they aren't.
Well, they may not mention the Designer by name, but I recently read Dembski's "Intelligent Design" and he quotes the Bible liberally, makes essentially no mention of polytheistic or non-Western takes on the issue of life's origin, and even prefaces his book with a statement that reads something like "as Christians, we know God created the universe..." (I'm paraphrasing). And he's considered the most "scientific" of all the better-known ID philosophers.

To me the only difference between creationists and IDistas is that the latter are sneakier.

I like "design under the influence", myself.

This has provided really interesting reading this afternoon...thanks for the great discussion guys.

B

Well, they may not mention the Designer by name, but I recently read Dembski's "Intelligent Design" and he quotes the Bible liberally, makes essentially no mention of polytheistic or non-Western takes on the issue of life's origin, and even prefaces his book with a statement that reads something like "as Christians, we know God created the universe..." (I'm paraphrasing). And he's considered the most "scientific" of all the better-known ID philosophers.

To me the only difference between creationists and IDistas is that the latter are sneakier.

I like "design under the influence", myself.


Ah ha! You got it! They aren't interested in the Designer because they already know all about him. :idea: They are sneaky indeed.