Oh, WTF... My last word on Intelligent Design...

[The Doctor.]

(Until the debate gets broader that is)

The problem with the debate on intelligent design is not whether it can be proven or disproved… indeed, I believe we will not know until our next major phase of evolution.

You see; Intelligent Design is a theory whose sole basis is that the universe is geared to create life.
“If we live in a Universe who’s laws brought us into being; that Universe must have ‘Intelligent’ laws.” So the question is;
Is a Universe in which intelligence does rise an ‘Intelligent Universe’?

Unfortunately, that is not the right question.

The right question is…

Under what conditions could sentience NOT arise?

There is your disprovable.

Intelligent design is a retroactive notion of origin based on our own very subjective criteria.
How do we know that a completely different universe would not have supported sentience?
How do we know that the laws of our universe are the only laws conducive to cognizance?

We do not.

Therefore, from our very own perspective it is ONLY logical that the universe whose laws brought us about is considered ‘intelligent’… as it is our intelligence that the universe has so far achieved.

Let’s face it folks…

THAT could be ANY Universe.


Ok… I’ll admit, there are probably other universes out there that could only come up with ‘dumb’ life, but even a dumb universe is better than none at all. In which case I have to wonder…

[saltpoint]

1. "Intelligent Design" is the sheep's costume --

-- the wolf of the radical right dons as he creeps into the public schools.

[alittlelark]

20. You are so all over that.

My mother does the Creationist Newsletter for CSF. I'll PM you her stuff. She has done the newsletter for 10 years... lately, she is soooo excited. She is getting 'talking points'. It used to be she and 5 or so people... now they are getting 'all that and a bag of chips' from SOMEONE. She will offer no info.

[saltpoint]

21. I'm not sure your mother would be hogwild about my --

-- views on Creationism.

In a word, I think it's codswallop. I'm a Darwin disciple. I say shut down the banks and the schools and the post office for Darwin's birthday.

Are you joshing me here, littlelark?

[rawtribe]

2. To quote Monty Python

And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
Because there's bugger all down here on Earth

[Ediacara]

3. But ID isn't a theory

It's opisthoscientific, because it presuposes an answer and then looks for supporting data. Additionally, there is no way to falsify it, nor can it make predictions. And quite honestly, it's laziness on the part of it's practitioners.

[The Doctor.]

5. Umm... that's pretty much what I said.

It's a "retrospective" and highly subjective perspective.

(Thank you Reverend Sharpton)

Did you note the part about 'what Universe couldn't support sentience?'?

[Ediacara]

6. Well, you did say

You see; Intelligent Design is a theory whose sole basis is that the universe is geared to create life.

And I was pointing out that in fact, ID is NOT a theory.

[The Doctor.]

10. Perhaps I am confused...

But I believe Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

I believe ID is a theory, not a fact.

I believe Creationism has been disproved, and is therefore a viable theory no longer.

If ID has been disproven, it is no longer a theory.

But the point of my post was not that at all.

It was this:

ANY Universe might generate sentience.
That means THIS, our Universe is not that special... even if it's the only one... (I know - prefixes and what...).

Saying that Our Universe was 'Intelligently Designed' just because it came up with us doesn't mean a thing... Intelligence can emerge anywhere.
(How Zen...)

[Ediacara]

13. What I'm saying is that ID is not in fact a theory

It was not produced using the scientific method, cannot be falsified, cannot make predictions, and is not a theory. I realize this tangent is not the main gist of your post, but it's something I wanted to point out nonetheless.

[The Doctor.]

27. Oh, right...

An untestable hypothesis cannot be a theory, for no predictions can be derived.

I came at that the other way.

[ConsAreLiars]

15. ID is not a theory - theories generate (dis)provable hypotheses.

It is an appeal to magical thinking. Other than that, you are quite right.

[ultraist]

7. That's all irrelevant. "For the Bible tell us so!"

[jdj]

4. I think it's male chauvanism

most of it is about fucking, to be crude.

and that's how we get tricked into breeding.

the "design" part is chauvanistic, wanting to take credit for the end result of such a generative diverse process that is arbitrary and unpredictable.

Therefore I would come nowhere near calling god an "intelligent designer".

If anything at all I would say if there is a god he or she is a "smart-ass practical joker." Where's my sticker for that?

[DrWeird]

8. I think it's fear of dying.

People want to believe there's a shiny happy place that they go to when they die, so they still believe whatever it was their parents told them on the subject. So they'll fight tooth and nail in order for them to deny things that they see as contradictions to those beliefs. And they'll resort easily to scientific fraud and intellectual deceit to do so.

[jdj]

12. I haven't given up on this.

Did you see the star trek voyager where the cook (the spotted guy) died and was brought back from dead and pretty much lost his will to live when he realized that there was no heaven?

That killed me.

If my soul vaporizes that instant then I suppose it's okay. But the depressing thing is thinking this is all there is.

[drhilarius]

16. But what makes it so depressing?

John Lennon had an answer: "Imagine there's no heaven." Why do fundies go around supporting intolerance, burning books, and censoring art? Because they believe they will later gain a heavenly reward. No reason to make this world good, because heaven makes this world irrelevant. Even people who aren't fundies, but very devout people, contribute to the problem. With your eyes constantly trained on heaven, what good can you do here. If more people accepted that this world is all there is, I'm certain more people would do something to improve it.

[me b zola]

9. For me, it is that while it may be a theory

it is not a scientific theory. They have attempted to put scientific methodology towards explaining ID, but it comes no where close to a scientific theory.

We have definitely entered a new dark age. Scientific thought is being replaced by a church agenda. This has been documented on all of this administration's policies. We should all be concerned with this trend, and strive toward a return to reason.

[Philosophy]

11. For a very good mathematical treatment of this, read:

"Anthropic Bias: Obervation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy" by Nick Bostrom

edit for clarification: by "this" I am referring to the specific idea you are getting at in your "last word", not the ID controversy in general.

[kineneb]

14. No, wait, its turtles all the way down...

Lemme see...earth rests on back of elephant...which stands on back of turtle...and after that it is turtles all the way down...

Sounds just as plausable as christian creation myth...personally, I prefer my ancestors' myths, they had more fun...Valhalla, beer, probably sausages, too...but got to watch out when the guy with one eye and a raven on his shoulder shows up, bad to piss off Odin, ya know...

[TreasonousBastard]

17. Actually, there's nothing wrong with ID...

as long as it's seen as a philosophical construct and not a physical one.

It does go back to Aristotle's "Prime Mover," nu? And haven't Jesuits been struggling with it for far longer than the current group of intellectual wannabees?

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the idea that there was a conscious design behind all of this-- I do see something wrong with claiming it as truth. And I particularly object to insisting on identifying the designer.

And, I really, really, object to trying to move this philosphical train of thought into the realm of hard science.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. I wouldn't argue with that at all

And if that's the case, then fine..subject it to the same scrutiny as other arguments concerning logic...masquerading it as science and teaching it in place of other scientific theories is my objection.

[Dark]

18. There is, theoretically, an infinite amount of time in the universe,

and enormous amounts of space. The chemical reactions required to produce life are intricate and complex. It is very unlikely that they happen on more than a few worlds in each galaxy.

BUT, because the universe is so vast, and with an infinite amount of time, the chemical combinations would eventually have to succeed at creating life somewhere.

Then, with still infinite amounts of time, somewhere life must change and create more advanced forms. Then predatory forms of life will evolve to catch up to their prey.

Etc.

Basically, if you throw a thousand marbles at a flat target sign, some will miss, some will make it barely inside, some would be in the middle, and a few would be in the center.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. Infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters, eh...

and if we are the random result of all of this time and energy in the universe, the simple fact that we are here causes us to ask why.

We are still the center of our universe, even though we have recently learned just how big it really is.

So we don't tend to ask why we were lucky enough to have it happen here, in a small corner of a small galaxy, but assume that it was intended for some reason.

Hubris, eh?

[rman]

22. The problem with ID: how did the designer come to be?

ID is like saying that the things humans do are directed by little creatures in our head; if that would be so then the question becomes: who or what is directing the little creature in your head? Is it directed by a yet smaller creature in its head? Etc ad infinitum? This line of reasoning doesn't really answer anything, doesn't give any insight.

[TreasonousBastard]

23. It doesn't matter...

anymore than it matters what would be here if the universe didn't exist at all. We don't know, and we're not going to know any time soon.

If there were a designer, it would be simply the designer of this universe, and could simply be the product of a larger infinity. whatever that is. The infinite little creatures in infinite heads makes little sense, but the alternatives are not much better.

Imagining a designer is really no more far-fetched than imagining a big bang out of nothing. Besides, the designer could just be the designer of this planet. The alien experiment idea is as good as any other until we know better.

Quite frankly, when talking about infinity, the boundaries or origins of the universe and other such things, nothing is provable or observable. All we know is what we can see, and that's not very much.

[rman]

25. Then ID is no more a theory then "Big Bang out of nothing"

The latter is not scientific theory, at best it is hypothesis. In fact the latest in mathematics - string theory - does indicate that the Big Bang did have a cause, though string theory hasn't exactly been shown to be the final answer.

What is scientific theory however - with ample evidence, as it should be - is that the Big Bang did take place.
Likewise there's ample evidence that evolution does take place. And there's no scientific evidence that the universe was created by a sentient being or an Intelligent Designer. Maybe there's theocratic evidence for ID, but theocracy is entirely different then science, so theocrats should not try to pretend that ID is science.

[TreasonousBastard]

26. As I sort of said earlier...

science is science, while theology and philosophy are not.

All of them are useful, perhaps necessary, for us to understand our world, but they should not be confused.

ID is every bit as valid as any other explanation for our existence, but it is not science, and should not be taught with science, which answers the question "What?"

It should be taught as philosophy, and included with all other answers to the question "Why?"

We'll never know for sure, but we have a lot of fun talking about it.

[The Doctor.]

28. Such a questions assumes time is linear.

I have never believed that.

Heck, WE could be the designer;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2974953#2975051