Is there a scientific theory of 'intelligent design'?

[me b zola]

If there is, please share it with me.

If not, get this shit out of our children's science classrooms.

[karlrschneider]

1. Short answer: no...long answer:

none at all.

:eyes:

[KittyWampus]

5. You Are Totally Incorrect. But Don't Let Your Fundamentalism Stop You

from posting erroneous information on DU.

Read "The Self Aware Universe" by Amit Goswami. He has a Ph.D in theoretical nuclear physics and is a professor of physics at the Univesity of Oregon.

[pmbryant]

12. What does that have to do with "intelligent design"?

I read a bit about that fellow, and his stuff sounds much more like a philosophical worldview than a scientific theory. Yes, he has physics training and uses a lot of scientific jargon, but it still is essentially philosophy, I think.

And anyway, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with 'intelligent design' (as a substitute for evoluation by natural selection).

--Peter

[KittyWampus]

18. Established Science Contends That The Universe Proceeds From

inert matter. There is an implicit Philosophy in this Materialist version of Science.

The theory that the Universe and also Consciousness proceeds from Matter is unsupportable by fact.

And Intelligent design does not try and 'substitute' evolution by natural selection.

It points to the weakness in the assumption that evolution happens through chance/random mutation with natural selection.

[pmbryant]

27. You're not up on the latest in science

Haven't you heard that astrophysicists now believe that 73% of everything in the Universe is made up of some myterious, unknown force called "Dark Energy"?

And not much about the Big Bang theory can be called "inert".

And I'm still wondering what the connection is between Goswami's "quantum flapdoodle" and the intelligent design movement.

--Peter

[KittyWampus]

39. Define "Quantum Flapdoodle." YOU Are The One Who Mentioned It.

and YOU are the one who has yet to address any of my valid points.

[pmbryant]

45. "Quantum flapdoodle" == Misuse of quantum physics

You brought up Goswami right away in this thread on intelligent design. I am wondering what the connection is. I don't see one, but perhaps I am ignorant.

Is it that difficult a question to answer?

EDIT: Ok, muriel_volestragler found a quote from Goswami (in post #44) that comes close to answering my question. I think I now see the connection.

--Peter

[me b zola]

61. But is there a scientific theory

worthy of putting this in a science classroom??

[Baconfoot]

67. Again with the philosophy bashing...n/t

[DrWeird]

16. Goswami is a new-age quack.

Debunked most recently in Scientific American.

He was in the film "What the @#$% Do We Know," which also featured that psychic that channels the 35,000 spirit "Ramtha."

[pmbryant]

19. "Quantum flapdoodle"

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0006F4CB-F090-11BE-AD0683414B7F0000

From Michael Shermer in Jan 2005 Scientific American:

The film's avatars are New Age scientists whose jargon-laden sound bites amount to little more than what California Institute of Technology physicist and Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann once described as "quantum flapdoodle." University of Oregon quantum physicist Amit Goswami, for example, says in the film: "The material world around us is nothing but possible movements of consciousness. I am choosing moment by moment my experience. Heisenberg said atoms are not things, only tendencies." Okay, Amit, I challenge you to leap out of a 20-story building and consciously choose the experience of passing safely through the ground's tendencies.

[KittyWampus]

24. How Is What You Posted An Argument? Have You Read The Work

YOURSELF?

You are like a Freeper who trashes F9/11 without seeing it.

[Taxloss]

32. But ID isn't an "argument".

It rests on no evidence. Where is this intelligence? Where are its fingerprints? What kind of intelligence is it? Is it God or what?

[KittyWampus]

35. It Most Certainly IS A Theory & What YOU Posted Is Not A Rebuttal

of Goswami's work.

[Taxloss]

46. So demonstrate the intelligence.

Darwinists have demonstrated natural selection, sexual selection and inheritance in the wild. Species have been show to grow and change in the wild, depending on environmental changes. Demonstrate how intelligence might be involved in these processes, since what we can observe shows that, in the time given, monocellular organisms could easily evolve into us as slowly as we see things changing in the field. In fact, there is time to spare.

And since we're "designed", why, how, and for what? Why aren't the ID "scientists" running around working on these rather important questions?

[KittyWampus]

21. Using Guilt By Assocation Weaken Your Case. And Commenting On

something you haven't bothered to read yourself doesn't exactly show you in a very good light either.

I actually can list several other physicists who have written books and put forth theories analogous to Intelligent Design.

[DrWeird]

38. popular "science" books aren't evidence of anything.

I mean, this guy once lectured at MIT:

www.timecube.com

[KittyWampus]

43. Since You Haven't Bothered To Read Up On The Subject Why Even

bother to opine on it?

I mentioned an individual who has written a relevant book and who has the credentials and academic standing to be taken seriously.

... who the fuck cares what's on your link unless it's related to the discussion.

Again, your red herring belies your weakness.

[DrWeird]

52. Some guy with a PhD writes a goofy new age book...

and that's supposed to be evidence of anything?

How about links, experiments, explanations...

I mean the guy's a joke in his own community.

[KittyWampus]

65. A Joke In His Own Community? How Is That A Rebuttal? And What

community are you talking about?

Physicists? There are plenty of others who have Ph.d's and jobs at Universities and papers published and who also work on similiar theories, constructing and conducting experiments, collecting data, investigating.

Where he sits as a professor? How do YOU know what the other professors at U of Oregon think of him.

You still have no personal knowledge of WHAT his theories are, how he makes his arguments and what data he uses as proof.

Let's see... here's another book for you:

"Not By Chance" by Lee M. Spetner.

Lee Spetner received the Ph.D. degree in physics from MIT in 1950 and joined the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University the following year. He spent most of his career doing research and development on information processing in electronic systems, and in teaching information and communication theory. In 1962 he accepted a year's fellowship in the Department of Biophysics at Johns Hopkins where he was to solve problems in the extraction of signal from noise in DNA electronmicrographs. During that fellowship, he learned much about biology.

Between 1964 and 1970, Dr. Spetner published several papers in the professional literature dealing with various aspects of evolutionary theory. His work appeared in Journal of Theoretical Biology, Proceedings 2nd International Congress on Biophysics, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, and Nature. He then returned to his regular work, but he continued to follow the developments in molecular biology and genetics.

There's an entire HOST of scientists with degrees in various fields who support the view that Neo-Darwinism is deeply flawed and insufficient and who have moved forward into the 21st century. Why don't you stop being so reactionary, defensive and close minded?

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. I think this quote from Goswami shows his ignorance of evolutionary theory

And even traditional subjects, like perception or biological evolution, have much to explain that these materialist theories don't explain. To give you one example, in biology there is what is called the theory of punctuated equilibrium. What that means is that evolution is not only slow, as Darwin perceived, but there are also rapid epochs of evolution, which are called "punctuation marks." But traditional biology has no explanation for this.
However, if we do science on the basis of consciousness, on the primacy of consciousness, then we can see in this phenomenon creativity, real creativity of consciousness. In other words, we can truly see that consciousness is operating creatively even in biology, even in the evolution of species. And so we can now fill up these gaps that conventional biology cannot explain with ideas which are essentially spiritual ideas, such as consciousness as the creator of the world.

http://twm.co.nz/goswam1.htm

Of course traditional biology can explain punctuated equilibrium. The argument is that most species stay stable for a long time, and that most evolution only occurs with isolation of populations and a change of conditions - when it can happen quickly (because small populations have a smaller tendency to revert to the average).

[me b zola]

54. Is it a scientific theory?

If it meets the criterea, please share...link...but please,ONLY scientific theory.

[me b zola]

58. 'scuse me...

I need scientific theory...like... real scientific theory

[Warren DeMontague]

2. It's the same kind of "science" that says dinosaur bones were planted

deliberately to test the faithful, some 5,000 years ago.

Oh, sorry, did I say "dinosaurs"? Surely I meant, "missionary lizards".

The same kind of "science" that says you can pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as your shareholders require, and the temperature of the planet is never, ever, ever going to go up.

Unfortunately we still have lots of flat-earthers and other types in willful, ignorant denial about reality amongst us.

[KittyWampus]

7. No, Actually. It's Not. Physicists Posit The Theory That The Universe

is non-local and is, at its base, Consciousness. They have also begun constructing experiments to prove this theory...

The flat-earthers here are not those who go beyond Materialism when investigating the Nature of the Universe.

[Taxloss]

11. Links? Perchance? Anything?

Nice work, describing all theories that don't involve a god as "materialism", putting evolution and random origins on the same level as a credit-card splurge. Way to repeat fundie talking points.

[KittyWampus]

36. Who Mentioned God? And If You Believe The Universe Proceeds

from Matter then you are a Materialist.

[Taxloss]

41. Belief that before there was anything, there was matter?

Of course I don't believe matter preceded the universe - the notion is absurd, but not as absurd as the notion that complex intelligence preceded the universe.

Edit: And who mentioned God? certainly not the ID aficionados, but they aren't exactly looking in to what this mysterious intellignce might be, are they? I wonder why? Because they think it's God?

[Taxloss]

13. If the universe is too complex to be random, what is God?

God must be pretty damn complex. Who designed it?

[RC]

23. What makes you think the Universe was designed?

Nothing is truly random.

[Taxloss]

28. I don't think the universe was designed.

It was a rhetorical question.

And systems self-organise, it happens. Nothing to do with God.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Don't get all Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky on ME, bub.

I understand the weirder potential implications of quantum theory. And I am by no means a strict materialist.

However, it's a long way from observer-influenced (or even created) reality to the idea that Jehovah designed us 5000 years ago from some biblical blueprint.

Want to go beyond materialism? That's fine. However, when we are dealing with public school science classes, my litmus test on whether something should be taught is whether it is valid and verifiable via the scientific method.. Unfortunately, most fourth graders aren't ready for Quantum physics, and furthermore, there is nothing inherent in quantum weirdness that precludes acceptance of evolution.

Science encourages asking more questions and isn't, or shouldn't be, afraid of the answers... religion (at least the bible-thumping kind) encourages asking fewer, or, more preferably, none.

Trust me, the "intelligent design" crowd folks real accepting of the kind of non-materialism you seem to be in favor of.

[raggedcompany]

9. click here to get a good laugh at their "science"

http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html

My favorite exhibit:

1st Place: "Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life"

Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.

[Taxloss]

17. That "experiment" is every bit as valid

as everything the ID movement has done. These fanatucs have to be stopped.

[Canuckistanian]

33. Proof positive, sir, proof positive!

Let those godless liberal elites dispute that!

[Johonny]

3. Sort of.

I was the basical view of naturalists some 200+ years ago. It lead to a great interest in studying nature. If nature was designed by God then perhaps through studying nature one could understand the nature of God. It fell out of favor when nature failed to live up to the expectations of the belief. If a classroom wanted to teach intelligent design in the context of the history leading up to the Theory of Evolution I'd be more than happy.

[me b zola]

14. But I am looking for scientific theory.

Seriously. I know a Bible tapper (that would be someone who does not quite thump, but you know, likes to read the Bible literally), and we are quite close but we have had some major blow outs over this issue. I have googled 'intelligent design', but there is no theory there.

I

Can't

Quite

Get

Through

To

Him....



HELP ME...PLEASE... :silly:

[Taxloss]

26. OK, ID relies on notions of perfection.

Things like the eye, the human body, and the human brain are just too GOOD at what they do to have arisen by chance. Well, this is rubbish, and can be shown to be so.

Starting small, the evolution of the eye can be clearly charted from existing animals on earth. There are animals that have light-sensitive cells on their skin, those that dapple their skin to create a 3d "view", those that have built chambers to begin to focus light, and those that have crude lenses to refine that light further. Then there are the complex animals like us that have advanced eyes. So you can see how simple photosensitivity has evolved into the eye. At each stage, it confers and evolutionary advantage.

Next, we have the human body. Our eyes are great, we'd all agree. But they're flawed. They have a blind spot. And they're fragile.

Plus, our whole endostructure is "designed" in the most STUPID way. A sensible way to design a biped would be to run the spine through the centre and make the knee joint ball and socket. However, our spine runs up our back, and the knee is just botched. This demonstrates clearly that we have evolved from animals that ran on all fours. We were NOT "designed" to be like this.

And EVERYTHING on Earth has similar flaws. That is the way randomness and evolution works.

If complexity is impossible without design, who created God?

[Johonny]

29. That's the theory

You can read some of Stephen J. Gould's books. He talks a lot about pre-darwinian naturalism. You have to remember at the time 200+ years ago world created by God and thus shows the signs of biblical creation in it was a perfectly rational idea to naturalists. It only fell out of favor because the facts of the world simply do not support it.

[me b zola]

59. Okay

I just want science taught in our science classrooms. Am I being unreasonable?

[raggedcompany]

4. None.

They've got the holy text (take your pick) and their ignorance-fueled imaginations, and that's about it. No case studies. Only mysteries. No brilliant, break through discoveries, only pat phrases like "everything happens for a reason," and "it's so complicated, it MUST be god."

Yawn.

[superconnected]

10. you just got to feel sorry for those idiots

Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Lincoln...

[me b zola]

51. Sorry if you are offended.

I, myself am a catholic with a quite healthy relationship with God.
I didn't need any one to explain to me the correlation between God & his magnificent universe, even as an adolescent.

Why people of faith cannot figure out for themselves that God and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive, I cannot understand.

I call the insistence of placing creationism in the science classroom sh*t because I want science taught there, not someone's fanciful imagination because they don't have the faith to believe that God could possibly be intelligent enough to work through science.

[superconnected]

63. I agree with that.

[Az]

6. There is a concerted effort to appear to have a theory

But when asked to provide a means to refute such a claim they never seem to be able to come up with anything. A theory not only has to have evidence and conform to it, but it also needs to be able to be refuted in some means. Evolution as a theory could easily be refuted if we found some creature spontaneously transmorgraphying into another creature with none of the messy intervening shifting of genetic material.

The argument boils down to God (or an intelligent entity beyond our reconning) did it. In any such discussion such an conclusion neither answers or simplifies the matter. It leaves us with the continuing issue of origins. Where did this entity come from? So nothing is gained and unwarranted explanations are added.

The real reason behind ID is that direct creationism has continuously been rebutted in school because the course they wish to teach it in is Science. Its perfectly acceptable to teach creationism in a comparitive religion course. But this is not the prize the religious right is after. So there has been a dedicated group of religious individuals that have worked to create the image of science surrounding creationism. The name of the game is get anything in the gap they can and use that as a lever. Once they have it in place they will apply full pressure and try to unseat the thing they hate the most. Critical thought.

One of the tactics they like to use is to claim that many scientists support their position. They then pull out a list of 100s of scientists that support their claims. Proponents of evolution and nonID science have put together a list of their own. It is called Project Steve (named after Stephen J Gould). It is a list of scientists named Steve that support the theory of evolution. Here it is with more than 500 scientists already on board. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp

The primary problem that ID theory faces it that it is trying to leverage a tremendously improbable solution to an issue that currently has a limited answer. From the observation of a specific range of starting conditions they presume that these initial conditions could only be the result of a planned universe. This completely reverses the process. They start with the assumption that this was a goal. That the universe was built with us in mind. They completely overlook the fact that we have evolved to fit the universe rather than it being built for our form.

There are also a multitude of theories (highly theoretical still but that is the nature of our plodding progress) that can easily account for the specific nature of this universe. The court is still out but there is nothing that raises to bar sufficiently to insist that an intelligence was required to make this universe. And as was mentioned before. Where would that intelligence have come from itself?

[KittyWampus]

15. Intelligent Design Is Simplyl Downward Causation Where The Universe

proceeds from Consciousness. This view resolves more paradoxes than it creates.

Upward Causation, where the Universe proceeds from Inert Matter, creates more paradoxes then it solves.

There are a growing number of physcists who posit this view.

Of course the Establishment is so totally invested in keeping the status quo they ridicule those who are actually keeping an open mind, investigating and constructing experiments and collecting data.

[Trajan]

55. You keep using this term ...

'Inert Matter' ....

Yet you have YET to provide one single concept which can explain the 'science' of 'Intelligent Design' ...

Not a one ....

[McKenzie]

8. ancient cultures had religion, ID types have religion

the commonality is that both are based upon faith and mythology. Consequently, ancient faiths have equal claim to "truth" as do ID-based religions. All are based upon unverifiable (does that word exist LOL?) faith-based ideas. Who are we to say that aboriginal faiths are silly when Christians practice equally strange rituals such as eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood by proxy via Communion. Just another ritual is it not? To assert that Christianity is right, and old religions are wrong, requires an intellectual imperialism/arrogance of the very worst sort.

Christianity is a Johnny-come-lately on the religous radar. A large number of religions have traditions that pre-date Christianity by thousands of years. The only way Christianity can claim hegemony is to ignore/trash what preceded Christianity. Mithraic tradition, for example, is much older than Christianity yet it is based upon a saviour mythology.

Aboriginal peoples existed thousands of years before Christianity, without having even heard of the bible and they got along just fine. Are they wrong? On what basis? What empirical evidence is there to PROVE they are wrong as opposed to Christianity? etc etc etc. And there is the vexed question of primitive societies that still exist in jungle areas with entirely different belief systems to Christianity. Who would be so arrogant to suggest their belief systems are any less valid than biblical teachings? On the contrary, their tradition, being older, has much more claim to legitimacy than the usurper Christian belief system.

[jody]

20. NO! Various competitive ideas fail the rigor of the scientific method.

One of the major problems is with those who claim to be Christians and assert that God is all loving while we are surrounded by death, poverty, and evil.

If I were God, I would not treat my creation that I made in my own image like that and since an hypothesized God is my superior in all things, neither would she.

[CarpeVeritas]

22. sure- it's called "Genesis, chapter 1"

[Joe Chi Minh]

25. It's a matter of common-sense

observation, dummies!

Which of your hot-shot scientismificists has been able to create one single-cell living organism out of inanimate matter? Go back to sleep.

Scientists can't even begin to understand the paradoxes of the quantum world and the macro-universe! It is a tribute to them that they have ben able to manage them to some extent.

You pillocks will be put in your place when another tsunami-type disaster occurs affecting you, personally, and you find your wrecthed scientismificists can't begin to match the wonders of creation. As they say, "There are no athesits in foxholes". Go back to sleep.

[Dudley_DUright]

30. Intelligent design is just more "creationist science" hokum

I commend all interested to read Judge Overton's decision in the McLain v. Arkansas case from the 1980's. Here is the best part:

Creation science as defined in Section 4(a), not only fails to follow the canons of dealing with scientific theory, it also fails to fit the more general descriptions of "what scientists think" and "what scientists do." The scientific community consists of individuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. Their work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section 4(a).

more...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html

[librechik]

31. it's a great theory, but it's not science

you can't prove or disprove it with repeatable experiments.

However, beyond science, I like it because so much of science remains unexplainable without the god-like element thrown in for what it's worth. But then, I'm not a scientist, I'm an intellectual, and I find BS amusing to my frivolous mind (sometimes.)

[KittyWampus]

37. You Are Incorrect. Experiments Have Proven The Universe Is Non-Local

[librechik]

40. and how do we prove a singular "intelligence" is responsible for that?

[Dudley_DUright]

47. True, but what does the Aspect experiment showing EPR to

be incorrect and implying QM is non-local have to to with intelligent design?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6724/pdf/398189.pdf

[pmbryant]

50. Thanks for that link

Interesting article on the Aspect experiment.

--Peter

[immoderate]

48. Some of it is. How else do we explain Chinese food deliveries?

--IMM

[EVDebs]

42. It's called a 'singularity' and the first microseconds of the Big Bang

confirm this. At the micro level 'quantum' level, all the normal rules of science get thrown out the window anyway (basis of string theory).

The Great Architect of the Universe isn't worried about this, and Einstein was also a freemason from what I've heard. This should put him in a bad light with Creationists too, but they don't tolerate any dissenters in or out of the 'classroom'.

The 'classroom' is overrated anyway.

[ulysses]

49. no. n/t

[killbotfactory]

53. No, there isn't.

But it makes christians who don't like the implication of evolution feel better about themselves.

[Trajan]

56. IS THERE AN ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF ID ????

Ask it AGAIN ....

IS THERE AN ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN ????

IF there is then EXPLAIN ITS BASIC TENETS ...

Otherwise: there is nothing to teach ....

[0rganism]

57. Apparently, the ID apologists don't understand the theory of evolution

The theory of evolution says NOTHING about life arising from inert matter. The word y'all are looking for is abiogenesis, and it's still a long way from having the kind of acceptance and credibility that the theory of evolution enjoys. It's very hard to find the kind of evidence that we'd need to properly fill in the blanks of a theory of abiogenesis.

The theory of evolution (yes, it's a theory) describes the changing of allele frequencies among organisms over time. It makes predictions which have been validated through controlled experimentation and careful observation. As far as theories go, it's extremely elegant and well-supported by evidence.

At this time, Intelligent Design proponents have no theory. There is only a notion of a way to potentially get around the theory of evolution and invoke the paranormal by declaring something "irreducably complex", but that is not in itself scientific. Thus far, ID makes no testable predictions, nor has any consistent definition of "irreducable complexity" been introduced.

At some future date, some creationist Einstein may well put forward such a theory. Currently, there is no such thing. Anyone who tells you "evolution is just a theory" needs to own up to the fact that ID isn't even a theory yet, and creationism is entirely a matter of personal religious faith.

[Trajan]

60. The use of the term ...

'inert matter' is a misnomer from the start ...

There is no evidence that 1) 'Inert Matter' was any part of a singularity which is presumed to exist at the point of expansion .... 2) that matter of ANY kind 'existed' during the singularity ...

Using this term in this argument is an indication that no serious discussion of the subject matter is at hand .... 'Inert Matter' was not a part of the primordial singularity ... and hence a useless reference in this case ...

[0rganism]

62. True enough, but we risk conflating "big bang" and "evolution" here

The theory of inflation is another solid one that creationists like to bash, but it's really only tangentially related to the theory of evolution.

Subsantially, I agree with you: even now, in our "unsingular" universe, the notion of "inert" matter is arguably at odds with what has been observed about the behavior of matter. Contextually, it really doesn't impact the theory of evolution and will likely dilute the discussion.

An unfocused, broad debate of generalities always plays to the creationists' advantage. When creationists cannnot confront solid and specific theories directly, their argument has always been one of idelogical indignance. Unfortunately, such a position thrives in a shallow discussion of multiple disparate topics.

[quaker bill]

64. I concur, get it out of the childrens classrooms

It is not scientific in the sense that it is a theory derived from observation.

At this time, it is best understood as an extrapolation in the realm of the "philosophy of science". Ideas like these are far too complex to be well understood by schoolchildren. They should stick to reading, writing and a general discussion of scientific principles that are well understood. You know, stuff like Newtonian mechanics and the mechanism of evolution.

[fshrink]

66. "Intelligent", I don't know, but

since a construct needs, to qualify as a theory, to be able to be proven wrong, any construct based on belief does not qualify. Just because belief cannot be proven wrong. The "leap of faith" is there for a reason. Enough said. Understand who can, all the others keep on believing!