Is "Intelligent Design" just another way of saying "I dunno"?

[Armstead]

After hearing and reading about Intelligent Design, it strikes me that it's just another way of saying "I dunno" about the deeper questions. It's a mega Cop Out.

Hard science theorizes, analyses, etc. Over time, this process has led to evermore detailed analysis of why things are the way they are as we push the boundaries forward.

But when we figure out something new, it usually leads to a whole new set of questions, on an even more refined level. We reach the wall of verifiable knowledge, but there's always a lot more to explore behind that wall....Science then starts to explore more to try to move that wall further back....And so the process continues perpetually.

Because of that, IMO, we are NEVER going to answer the ultimate questions of "first cause" by science alone, because that's a constantly moving target.

Therefore, individually we are faced with several basic choices. We can take a totally secular approach, and assume that the unknown is the same as the known -- we just haven't figured it out yet...Or, we can keep an open mind about the unknowable, and say "Maybe. maybe not" regarding first causes....Or, we can take a "leap of faith" and assume that the unknowable is based on God's plan or some otehr spiritual cause based on our own intuition.

They are all equally valid, because we are dealing with our own limitations of knowledge.

HOWEVER, this "Intelligent Design" nonsense strikes me as a cop-out, an attempt to have it both ways. Claiming a blind leap of faith is science. It uses what we don't know as a reason to claim we know something. "Because we don't know what set the first chemical action that led to life, it must be the result of some Intelligent Design planned by a Creator.

IMHO, if you want to have faith, you should. If you want to boil everything down to science, you should. But don't claim that blind faith is the same as science.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. More like "I dunno, but god musta done it!"

[trekbiker]

27. hypothesis, theory, law

(note: I didn't write the following but copied it from a very good post here on DU a few months back. I forget who the author was (my apologies if the original poster reads this). ID is NOT a theory but simply an assertion based upon personal belief or faith. It doesn't even rise to the level of hypothesis.)


Theories, laws, hypotheses, these are things of science, not faith. I don't see how helping to confuse the two serves either. Science does not seek to replace faith, nor even supplement it. It seeks its own path regardless of faith. That faith and science occasionally cross paths when attempting to understand the same earthly phenomenon is unavoidable, but does not mean that one must be set against the other. When the two do not agree, there should be no surprise. Anymore than there is surprise that two travelers, departing from different cities, headed to different destinations, happen to cross paths that that ultimately diverge.

This conflict, like so many, has caused words to be confused, and abused.

Belief does not equal theory.

"Just" as a modifier of theory is an oxymoron. A theory is a lofty accomplishment. It conforms to observations and has predictive value. There is no "just" about it. Within the realm of this conversation, only "laws" achieve a loftier status. Would you
say "just a gold medal winner" because they didn't set a world
record? You surely wouldn't make a comparison and say "he's just a gold medal winner, but this young up and comer is the real deal". Theories must be consistent with laws, and those that aren't are forever suspicious until the lack of consistency is explained.

A hypothesis is not a theory. It is a bit more serious than an assertion because it should be "testable" even if only through "thought experiments". But ultimately, any hypothesis which is not testable is pretty useless.

An assertion is the beginning of a hypothesis. "Life is too complex to have been formed by chance" is an assertion. A hypothesis would be something along the line of "complexity can never be increased after the period of creation".

[ComerPerro]

2. All fundie nonsense is a cop-out. And it offends me very much

"I don't know, God did it".

That's what they are saying.

And, that's what they want our kids to be taught!

[Armstead]

7. Not all fundie beliefs are a cop-out, unless they're dishonest

I'm a spiritually oriented agnostic. In otehr words, I don't know if there is a prime spiritual core to life or not. But my instincts tell me there is, but it's not contained within the confines of any religion.

Therefore I can at least understand where fundamentalism comes from, even if I don't agree with it on the specifics.

But it's dishonest when they attempt to confuse faith with science.

[Kraklen]

3. It's another way of saying...

"Have you accepted our Lord Jesus Christ into your heart?"

[Armstead]

10. E=MChrist2

With apologies to Einstein

[ProdigalJunkMail]

4. actually science more readily admits

to "I don't know." And that is a good thing. For someone to say that I KNOW how all this got started is the danger. No one does know and no one can. I am religious person. I have a belief about how this all began. But I don't know. Heck, when (and if) we make it to an afterlife, God may just say, "Nah, I was just jerkin' yer chain, man!"

SubjectProdigal

[wli]

5. it's on the order of a First Cause argument

In reality, it says a lot less than what its promoters claim. They're trying to elaborate on it with irrelevant Christianity-specific affairs.

[salvorhardin]

6. No. ID is a political ploy.

It is an attempt to undermine secular government.

[me b zola]

22. Bingo

A political ploy to undermine secular government (our Constitutional government) and advance the ideology of the rw. I cringe when Dems fall into the trap of believing any of this faith based stuff is a way to attract voters.

[Mr Rabble]

8. More like, " I know what I know and thats that"

cant argue faith.

[Armstead]

9. That's the problem I have with it

You can't argue faith on a rational basis. You have it or you don't. And it takes a form that transcends rational scientific analysis.

Intelligent design, however, makes a claim of certainty based on lack of contrary evidence. "We don;t know the answer, so this is the answer."

It's duplicitous and hypocritical.

[Orrex]

18. Exactly! "I don't know" is a valid scientific response

As long as it isn't followed by "and thou shalt not seek the answer."

Intelligent Design Creationism is less scientific than defecating, but coincidentally both produce largely the same result.

[XemaSab]

11. You nailed it

As a biologist, I believe in evolution, but I don't care if they teach ID in the schools, simply because there's nothing there to teach.

ID Summarized: "Some people believe that life was designed by a creator God."

There. That's the entire "theory" right there, and that's really all that you can say about it, because there's no evidence whatsoever to support it. There are mountains of evidence to support evolution, and the only "support" for ID is the stuff that evolution is unclear on, like soft-tissue and biochemistry, just because there's no fossil evidence, because chemicals and soft tissues don't fossilize.

You can't use the lack of soft-tissue fossils as "proof" of God.

ID is proposed by people who know nothing about biology or evolution except that it's not what's in the Bible.

[Armstead]

14. Maybe that's why we should support teaching ID

>>>ID Summarized: "Some people believe that life was designed by a creator God."<<<

That'd take about ten seconds of class time. I could live with that.
:evilgrin:

[rman]

12. O'Reilly's guest on the matter had some interesting things to say

Dr Paul Gross:
"You say ID is nothing more then informing kids that some don't believe in evolution.
ID is a complex, highly proliferated body of action, literature - mostly PR - the purpose of which is to teach or at least suggest that there's a big body of scientific evidence showing that standard evolutionary biology is wrong. That so-called Darwinism has collapsed or is collapsing. That is all false."

"ID theory - so-called theory - it's a body of claims almost all of which are that Darwinism - so called - is wrong, not evidence for ID.

Gross wrote a book by the title of "Creationism's Trojan Horse".

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/08/02.html#a4283


To me it looks like it's more then a cop-out.

[DanCa]

13. It's Trojan Horse prolife speak

Imo not true bible study or creationism. It's just watered down pc mumbo jumbo so the pro lifers can get thier political agenda and mememtic devices into the public school system.

[craychek]

15. Well said n/t

[Fescue4u]

16. Saying "I dunno" is ALOT smarter than saying

"I know"

I cant think of a more arrogant thing to claim, than to claim knowledge of the origins of the Universe.

All we have are theorys.

[Armstead]

19. To clarify...

Saying I dunno is an honest statement. Calling it a science is what's wrong.

[Kraklen]

21. Yeah, but Creationists aren't really saying "I dunno."

They're saying, "God did it, stop asking."

[Armstead]

25. Fundies say "God did it" when they're being honest

When they're being dishonest they use Intelligent Design as an excuse to stop quetions by pretending that there is a limit to "knowable knowledge."

Same effect. Different packaging.

[me b zola]

23. "All we have are theorys"

Hmmm.

I have a theory that the the corner ma & pa market is actually run by aliens planning to conquer the earth. It's not a scientfic theory, but it is a theory just the same.

Scientific methodology and scientific theory are quite different than fanciful-thought theories. Which kind belongs in a science classroom?


When my grandchildren are old enough for school, I will sue if they waste the precious time allotted for science by discussing theology.

[Fescue4u]

26. Of course

"Scientific methodology and scientific theory are quite different than fanciful-thought theories."

And its quite a good idea to rank theories by their merit using all the tools available.

[leftofthedial]

17. gawd dunnit

but we'll assiduously insist on not naming "gawd" as a constitutional subterfuge to allow us to infiltrate schools with our theology

[Johonny]

20. No

It's another way to say "I do not believe".

Basically it's whole arguments fall into categories of I do not believe something as complex as an eye can just evolve by random chance. I do not believe something as complex as a parasite life cycle could evolve... It's a series of I do not believe statement, not I do not know.

[Julius Civitatus]

24. Nope. It's another way of saying "Praise Jeeeesus!" --- N/T