Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
Intelligent design science?
March 8, 2012 at 4:14 pm
I'm not referring to biology. I'm referring to if you infer a pencil must be designed or a car must be designed. I think it's in the realms of logic but not science.
A person another forum is arguing if you make calculations of why a pencil cannot be made from natural means, inferring it to be designed would be science.
I personally think that would be outright silly and not science, because there is no chance of it even assembling by natural means, for any calculations to be made in reality.
What are your thoughts about it? Would it be called science?
Posts: 4940
Threads: 99
Joined: April 17, 2011
Reputation:
45
RE: Intelligent design science?
March 8, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Sounds like they're just relying on the old "if something exists then it had to have a creator" argument. I don't even bother with trying to refute that nonsense any more.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
Posts: 169
Threads: 7
Joined: January 25, 2012
Reputation:
4
RE: Intelligent design science?
March 8, 2012 at 5:14 pm
I follow Popper on the notion that a scientific claim is one that suggests further inquiries (or is capable of making bold, new, and falsifiable claims). The observation "this was designed" tout court only makes the question "How was the pencil created?" go away. Until we start a conversation about who the designer was, what tools they used to design it, etc., this claim isn't fostering any new thought.
Bundled with that... I think calling an individual statement 'scientific' is as problematic as calling an individual plank of wood 'house-ific'. We need statements and claims to build sciences, and we need planks of wood to build houses. The use matters. Things are only scientific to the extent that they afford us a means or methodology for doing science.
Anyway, I'm pretty attached to this description of scientific paradigms.
So these philosophers were all like, "That Kant apply universally!" And then these mathematicians were all like, "Oh yes it Kan!"
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Intelligent design science?
March 8, 2012 at 5:49 pm
(This post was last modified: March 8, 2012 at 5:51 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(March 8, 2012 at 4:14 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I'm not referring to biology. I'm referring to if you infer a pencil must be designed or a car must be designed. I think it's in the realms of logic but not science.
A person another forum is arguing if you make calculations of why a pencil cannot be made from natural means, inferring it to be designed would be science.
I personally think that would be outright silly and not science, because there is no chance of it even assembling by natural means, for any calculations to be made in reality.
What are your thoughts about it? Would it be called science?
It can conceivable be a science, provided one is willing to elabrate it through the manumental grunt work of systematically and reliablt describing all possible routes by which something can come into being, and then rigorously determine the probability of each of these route having been followed to its conclusion within available time, and compare the aggregate probability involving all of those routes which at some stage exhibit a rigorously defined "intelligent interference", against all those routes which do not involve such.
Posts: 2254
Threads: 85
Joined: January 24, 2010
Reputation:
29
RE: Intelligent design science?
March 8, 2012 at 7:00 pm
(This post was last modified: March 8, 2012 at 7:06 pm by Welsh cake.)
(March 8, 2012 at 4:14 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I'm not referring to biology. I'm referring to if you infer a pencil must be designed or a car must be designed. I think it's in the realms of logic but not science. Intelligent design science?
The word you're looking for already exists, its called engineering.
One is called tool-making (for a pencil), the other is automotive engineering (for the car). Broadly, you apply some science, economics, mathematics and ergonomics to design and produce these and more.
Quote:A person another forum is arguing if you make calculations of why a pencil cannot be made from natural means, inferring it to be designed would be science.
Depends on what they mean by "natural means" because through the course of history the tool [pencil] has been made from natural occurring materials.
Quote:I personally think that would be outright silly and not science, because there is no chance of it even assembling by natural means, for any calculations to be made in reality.
?
Quote:Would it be called science?
No. Engineering is not science, it applies science and practical knowledge.
They are two different disciplines, that while have a close relationship, should not be conflated.
"Scientists study the world as it is; engineers create the world that has never been." - Theodore von Kármán
Posts: 281
Threads: 2
Joined: January 25, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Intelligent design science?
March 8, 2012 at 11:46 pm
The concept of Intelligent Design has always intrigued me. Nature is designed "intelligently", is quite effective and is very beautiful. Yet I don't think the process of evolution necessarily needs to have a Creator to impose himself on the this worldly work of art. Evolution IS intelligent. It is purposeful. It strives for life against all odds. This to me is the real miracle. What is this driving force?
Any claim of God is outdated for sure but I still wonder what makes things click. There are many recurring patterns in nature that when I notice them, I feel enlightened. For example, as I was eating a piece of raw brocolli today (to try and stay healthy), I appreciated it's small tree-like appearance. And this reminds me now that I would like to get a small Bonzai tree to put next to my cool Buddha! 
You, yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection.
There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
Buddha 
Posts: 67214
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Intelligent design science?
March 9, 2012 at 1:23 am
(This post was last modified: March 9, 2012 at 1:28 am by The Grand Nudger.)
We interpret it's "design" as "intelligent" only by reference to what worked (specifically only what continues to work), all the while ignoring the vast amount of things that did not. Life threw several 55 gallon barrels of darts at a wall the size of a planet, and a handful stuck. We call that intelligence? Design? Hardly. We humans beings are a natural means of assembly. We did not invent flight, we imitated it, we did not invent combustion, we bottled it. The products of human beings are the products of purely natural means. We can say that wood might never arrange itself into a pencil, but why would it? What does this have to do with life, which is not a pencil? Where is the science, in this science?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 281
Threads: 2
Joined: January 25, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Intelligent design science?
March 9, 2012 at 1:46 am
(March 9, 2012 at 1:23 am)Rhythm Wrote: We interpret it's "design" as "intelligent" only by reference to what worked (specifically only what continues to work), all the while ignoring the vast amount of things that did not. Life threw several 55 gallon barrels of darts at a wall the size of a planet, and a handful stuck. We call that intelligence? Design? Hardly. We humans beings are a natural means of assembly. We did not invent flight, we imitated it, we did not invent combustion, we bottled it.
Wow, I really like the analogy of darts, but what threw them at this small target called earth? I think there is great randomness in this universe but it still STRIVES for survival and evolution. I am glad that I am alive and well. Religion, in it's best forms, elicits great mysticism and humility at the same time. I am happy to be alive and to have ever even existed. I don't know shit, I just want you and me to be free, truly free, my friend.
You, yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection.
There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
Buddha
Posts: 67214
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Intelligent design science?
March 9, 2012 at 1:53 am
(This post was last modified: March 9, 2012 at 1:56 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Life, IE, they threw themselves, because there was nothing else to throw them. Mostly they were just dashing their heads against the rocks, complete failures. It's absurdly pointless to point to the small fraction that remains and say "this was so smart, such a wonderful design". The dead would disagree, if they could. Count the hits, ignore the misses.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 7388
Threads: 168
Joined: February 25, 2009
Reputation:
45
RE: Intelligent design science?
March 9, 2012 at 2:41 am
(This post was last modified: March 9, 2012 at 2:42 am by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
The watchmaker's/teleological argument is the basic argument used by creationists and thoroughly debunked. Do some reading,perhaps starting with the Wiki article below.
Quote:A person another forum is arguing if you make calculations of why a pencil cannot be made from natural means, inferring it to be designed would be science.
The use of sophistry is not using science to prove anything. If god is to be be proved using science, that obliges the use of scientific method. IE the provision of credible empirical evidence.
Quote: There are three main arguments against the Watchmaker analogy. The first is that complex artifacts do not, in fact, require a designer, but can and do arise from "mindless" natural processes (as in the "Infinite Monkey Theorem"). The second argument is that the watch is a faulty analogy. The third argument is that the watchmaker is arguably a far more complex organism than the watch, and if complexity proves intelligent design, then the question arises: who designed such a complex designer?
Another argument is that teleological order is different from, and more strict than definitions of order using the concepts of entropy used in the physical sciences. Any complete congelation of the individual elements of a watch may properly be called, in a physical sense, the assembly of a watch. However, teleological order demands that the gears of a watch turn, and that the watch keep time by motion of the hands, and even that the time measurement be relatively accurate. Such requirements select a minuscule set of the possible assemblages of the elements of the watch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
|
