Is 'Intelligent Design' a sound hypothesis?

[NWO_Spook]

The continuing controversy surrounding 'Intelligent Design' as a sound hypothesis worthy of being taught in schools is raised periodically on various fora. Many believe that the natural world is the product of a supernatural agent. If we determine an object has been designed by contrasting said object with the natural world (e.g. a Rolex as opposed to a rock), how can one declare the natural world is the product of a designer? On what basis can one make such a determination if it isn't falsifiable, or if one cannot demonstrate causation with any degree of certainty? Many defenders of this hypothesis confuse complexity with design and that is of course a fallacious assumption.

Others look to William Lane Craig's popularisation (1979) of what is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument (similar to the Aristotelian concept of the unmoved mover) that is:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause.

Craig attributed the 'cause' to god by expanding upon the argument in the following fashion:

The universe has a cause, and if the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who without the universe is without origin, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful; therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who without the universe is without origin, immutable, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful.

However, this relies the assumption that the universe was born out of nothing and that there had to be a single agent to set this process in train (ex nihilo creatio), however, Hawking noted that "it is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Martin (1979) critiqued Craig's premises with "it should be obvious that Craig's conclusion that a single personal agent created the universe is a non sequitur. At most, this Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent is the creator. On the contrary, for all he shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents involved in the creation."

These agents or agent may not be a supernatural being, but a natural force that we unaware of at this stage of our learning. Furthermore, the statement that the universe is borne from nothing is again, an assumption-an assumption that hasn't been demonstrated at this point.

Therefore, I posit that 'Intelligent Design' is a flawed hypothesis that is not falsifiable and is based upon assumptions borne of nothing more than a belief system.

Your thoughts?

 

[Dragonfly]

The continuing controversy surrounding 'Intelligent Design' as a sound hypothesis worthy of being taught in schools is raised periodically on various fora. Many believe that the natural world is the product of a supernatural agent. If we determine an object has been designed by contrasting said object with the natural world (e.g. a Rolex as opposed to a rock), how can one declare the natural world is the product of a designer? On what basis can one make such a determination if it isn't falsifiable, or if one cannot demonstrate causation with any degree of certainty? Many defenders of this hypothesis confuse complexity with design and that is of course a fallacious assumption.

Others look to William Lane Craig's popularisation (1979) of what is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument (similar to the Aristotelian concept of the unmoved mover) that is:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause.

Craig attributed the 'cause' to god by expanding upon the argument in the following fashion:

The universe has a cause, and if the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who without the universe is without origin, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful; therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who without the universe is without origin, immutable, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful.

However, this relies the assumption that the universe was born out of nothing and that there had to be a single agent to set this process in train (ex nihilo creatio), however, Hawking noted that "it is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Martin (1979) critiqued Craig's premises with "it should be obvious that Craig's conclusion that a single personal agent created the universe is a non sequitur. At most, this Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent is the creator. On the contrary, for all he shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents involved in the creation."

These agents or agent may not be a supernatural being, but a natural force that we unaware of at this stage of our learning. Furthermore, the statement that the universe is borne from nothing is again, an assumption-an assumption that hasn't been demonstrated at this point.

Therefore, I posit that 'Intelligent Design' is a flawed hypothesis that is not falsifiable and is based upon assumptions borne of nothing more than a belief system.

Your thoughts?

I wish you good luck on this endeavor. :cheers:

 

[Rumpelstil]

Therefore, I posit that 'Intelligent Design' is a flawed hypothesis that is not falsifiable and is based upon assumptions borne of nothing more than a belief system.

I agree.

 

[Daisy]

Depends on the person...some I would say no...:2razz:

 

[NWO_Spook]

Depends on the person...some I would say no...:2razz:

What does that even mean? Did you read the OP?

 

[Daisy]

What does that even mean? Did you read the OP?

It was a joke, son...

 

[NWO_Spook]

It was a joke, son...

I figured that, but it was somewhat nonsensical in context, daughter. Do you care to address the topic at all?

 

[zyzygy]

Who designed the designer?

 

[tosca1]

The continuing controversy surrounding 'Intelligent Design' as a sound hypothesis worthy of being taught in schools is raised periodically on various fora. Many believe that the natural world is the product of a supernatural agent. If we determine an object has been designed by contrasting said object with the natural world (e.g. a Rolex as opposed to a rock), how can one declare the natural world is the product of a designer? On what basis can one make such a determination if it isn't falsifiable, or if one cannot demonstrate causation with any degree of certainty? Many defenders of this hypothesis confuse complexity with design and that is of course a fallacious assumption.

Others look to William Lane Craig's popularisation (1979) of what is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument (similar to the Aristotelian concept of the unmoved mover) that is:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause.

Craig attributed the 'cause' to god by expanding upon the argument in the following fashion:

The universe has a cause, and if the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who without the universe is without origin, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful; therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who without the universe is without origin, immutable, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful.

However, this relies the assumption that the universe was born out of nothing and that there had to be a single agent to set this process in train (ex nihilo creatio), however, Hawking noted that "it is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Martin (1979) critiqued Craig's premises with "it should be obvious that Craig's conclusion that a single personal agent created the universe is a non sequitur. At most, this Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent is the creator. On the contrary, for all he shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents involved in the creation."

These agents or agent may not be a supernatural being, but a natural force that we unaware of at this stage of our learning. Furthermore, the statement that the universe is borne from nothing is again, an assumption-an assumption that hasn't been demonstrated at this point.

Therefore, I posit that 'Intelligent Design' is a flawed hypothesis that is not falsifiable and is based upon assumptions borne of nothing more than a belief system.

Your thoughts?

As a HYPOTHESIS - which means, a proposition - I'd say it is very sound!


After all, the complexity and order of nature, is one if not the motivating evidence that had made some great thinkers and scientists to either believe that this is all designed, or that there is a God.

"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature.


"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us.

Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience.
Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."

WMAP Site FAQs




Furthermore.....


Creation by God, isn't off the table (as far as science is concerned). The possibility exists - as shown by what the NAS' calls,
Theistic Evolution.

However the National Academy of Sciences says it shouldn't be taught in a science class......for the simple reason that science does not,
and cannot deal with the supernatural.

Science's capability is quite limited to the physical (which it can observe, analyze and explain).


I suppose, if Intelligent Design is a stand alone subject that is taught in school - that'd be okay.

 

[HonestJoe]

The continuing controversy surrounding 'Intelligent Design' as a sound hypothesis worthy of being taught in schools is raised periodically on various fora.

”Intelligent Design” isn’t a hypothesis in itself, in the same way that “Meat!” isn’t a valid order in a restaurant. ”Intelligent Design” could be considered a class of hypothesis but I don’t think anyone has ever proposed an actual scientific hypothesis for a specific intelligent designer and the specific mechanism by which that designer created the universe. That’s what would be required of an actual hypothesis.

The kind of logical arguments you mentioned about the universe requiring some kind of cause are a completely different thing. They’re valid in principle (though not necessarily in conclusion) but even if they’re accepted on face value, they’re not hypotheses.

 

[Dragonfly]

The continuing controversy surrounding 'Intelligent Design' as a sound hypothesis worthy of being taught in schools is raised periodically on various fora.

Therefore, I posit that 'Intelligent Design' is a flawed hypothesis that is not falsifiable and is based upon assumptions borne of nothing more than a belief system.

Your thoughts?

Intelligent design can be "taught" in church, private schools, and at home.

Teaching it in public schools could possibly happen as part of a philosophy class which most likely would be voluntary.
Other than that, there's no reason to "teach" such a thing in public schools.

"I don't know, therefore god" is not a thing that's worthy of being "taught".

 

[Quag]

Who designed the designer?

I did but in my defence I was drunk at the time

 

[NWO_Spook]

”Intelligent Design” isn’t a hypothesis in itself, in the same way that “Meat!” isn’t a valid order in a restaurant. ”Intelligent Design” could be considered a class of hypothesis but I don’t think anyone has ever proposed an actual scientific hypothesis for a specific intelligent designer and the specific mechanism by which that designer created the universe. That’s what would be required of an actual hypothesis.

The kind of logical arguments you mentioned about the universe requiring some kind of cause are a completely different thing. They’re valid in principle (though not necessarily in conclusion) but even if they’re accepted on face value, they’re not hypotheses.

Agreed, but it has been argued as a hypothesis in the past. Recently I read an article titled 'The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis' and that prompted my OP. But if the term 'hypothesis' can be defined as a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation, then I find the proposition to be unsound.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Who designed the designer?

Craig felt that wasn't necessary for some inexplicable reason. He assumed the creator was 'beginningless'.

 

[NWO_Spook]

As a HYPOTHESIS - which means, a proposition - I'd say it is very sound!


After all, the complexity and order of nature, is one if not the motivating evidence that had made some great thinkers and scientists to either believe that this is all designed, or that there is a God.

It may have been the motivation for some, but complexity does not denote design. This becomes an argument from incredulity, hence the reason I stated it was fallacious.

Furthermore.....Creation by God, isn't off the table (as far as science is concerned). The possibility exists - as shown by what the NAS' calls,
Theistic Evolution.

As far as cosmology is concerned, it isn't on the table as Hawking noted in the OP.

However the National Academy of Sciences says it shouldn't be taught in a science class......for the simple reason that science does not, and cannot deal with the supernatural.

Science's capability is quite limited to the physical (which it can observe, analyze and explain).

Agreed.

I suppose, if Intelligent Design is a stand alone subject that is taught in school - that'd be okay.

It could be taught in religious studies for sure.

 

[Integrityrespec]

The continuing controversy surrounding 'Intelligent Design' as a sound hypothesis worthy of being taught in schools is raised periodically on various fora. Many believe that the natural world is the product of a supernatural agent. If we determine an object has been designed by contrasting said object with the natural world (e.g. a Rolex as opposed to a rock), how can one declare the natural world is the product of a designer? On what basis can one make such a determination if it isn't falsifiable, or if one cannot demonstrate causation with any degree of certainty? Many defenders of this hypothesis confuse complexity with design and that is of course a fallacious assumption.

Others look to William Lane Craig's popularisation (1979) of what is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument (similar to the Aristotelian concept of the unmoved mover) that is:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause.

Craig attributed the 'cause' to god by expanding upon the argument in the following fashion:

The universe has a cause, and if the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who without the universe is without origin, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful; therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who without the universe is without origin, immutable, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful.

However, this relies the assumption that the universe was born out of nothing and that there had to be a single agent to set this process in train (ex nihilo creatio), however, Hawking noted that "it is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Martin (1979) critiqued Craig's premises with "it should be obvious that Craig's conclusion that a single personal agent created the universe is a non sequitur. At most, this Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent is the creator. On the contrary, for all he shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents involved in the creation."

These agents or agent may not be a supernatural being, but a natural force that we unaware of at this stage of our learning. Furthermore, the statement that the universe is borne from nothing is again, an assumption-an assumption that hasn't been demonstrated at this point.

Therefore, I posit that 'Intelligent Design' is a flawed hypothesis that is not falsifiable and is based upon assumptions borne of nothing more than a belief system.

Your thoughts?

It's a worthy theory, just as evolution or creationism are teachable as theories. If you are a creationist, it's easy to connect science to God as a gift of God. Did God create the world with a plan?

 

[tosca1]

It may have been the motivation for some, but complexity does not denote design.

I gave the National Academy of Sciences' views on it.
I don't think there's any other scientific body that has the ultimate credibility.


If you're going against what the NAS is conveying - on whose authority do you base your opinion?

This becomes an argument from incredulity, hence the reason I stated it was fallacious.

More like.....

……..it's your argument that comes from incredulity. You can't bring yourself to acknowledge the possibility.

 

[NWO_Spook]

I gave the National Academy of Sciences' views on it. I don't think there's any other scientific body that has the ultimate credibility.

If you're going against what the NAS is conveying - on whose authority do you base your opinion?

No authority, but logic itself. To state that complexity denotes design is an argument from ignorance, for how can that be demonstrated? It can't and it requires a leap of logic.

 

[zyzygy]

Craig felt that wasn't necessary for some inexplicable reason. He assumed the creator was 'beginningless'.

That explains it!

 

[tosca1]

No authority, but logic itself. To state that complexity denotes design is an argument from ignorance, for how can that be demonstrated?
It can't and it requires a leap of logic.

No! Your position is illogical. You've got nothing to support your claim other than to say....."it can't be demonstrated."

I gave the views of the NAS. The possibility of Creation (and therefore Intelligent Design, too) is not off the table.
Your opinion is completely without basis!

Just because we're dealing with something supernatural (which is beyond the realm of science), does not mean the
possibility isn't there.

Furthermore......the NAS has gone so far as to claim that Theistic Evolution (which I say refers to the ABRAHAMIC GOD),
is compatible with scientific evidences!

 

[Visbek]

Therefore, I posit that 'Intelligent Design' is a flawed hypothesis that is not falsifiable and is based upon assumptions borne of nothing more than a belief system.

Your thoughts?

Yeah, pretty much.

"Intelligent design" is not a scientific hypothesis, it's a religious belief. It was promulgated in part to attack evolution and put religion back in schools.

Here are some excerpts from the "Wedge Document," written by the Discovery Institute, about the strategy:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art....

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
The Wedge Document | National Center for Science Education

It is worth noting that pretty much every alleged example of "intelligent design" has been torn to shreds. For example, the claims that eyes are "irreducibly complex" is simply wrong, as it is fairly easy to chart the evolutionary path of the eye:

And of course, ID was basically destroyed in court, as even its most ardent proponents could not defend it (Edwards v Aguillard).

IMO, anyone still pushing ID is just desperate and irrational. Religious individuals would be much better served by claiming/believing that "God invented evolution," instead of trying to proclaim that the myths in the Old Testament are literal descriptions of the formation of life.

 

[NWO_Spook]

No! Your position is illogical.

Then demonstrate thus, for I know it isn't. Complexity does not denote design and to state it does without demonstrating the claim is an argument from assertion based upon incredulity (I'm in awe, therefore god).

I gave the views of the NAS.

Indeed you did.

Your opinion is without basis!

The logic is sound.

Just because we're dealing with something supernatural (which is beyond the real of science), does not mean the possibility isn't there.

I didn't say it wasn't possible. It is simply there is no reason or evidence to accommodate it.

The NAS claims that Theistic Evolution (which I say refers to the ABRAHAMIC GOD), is compatible with scientific evidences!

How can it be so as there is no evidence to even consider it worthy of investigation? Please quote where the NAS supports your claim above, for I'm interested in the evidence that led to such a conclusion. I understand how the NAS refuses to dismiss the possibility, for that is sound owing to the fact that one cannot disprove it, but there is no supporting evidence for it either.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Yeah, pretty much.

"Intelligent design" is not a scientific hypothesis, it's a religious belief. It was promulgated in part to attack evolution and put religion back in schools.

Here are some excerpts from the "Wedge Document," written by the Discovery Institute, about the strategy:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art....

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
The Wedge Document | National Center for Science Education

It is worth noting that pretty much every alleged example of "intelligent design" has been torn to shreds. For example, the claims that eyes are "irreducibly complex" is simply wrong, as it is fairly easy to chart the evolutionary path of the eye:

And of course, ID was basically destroyed in court, as even its most ardent proponents could not defend it (Edwards v Aguillard).

IMO, anyone still pushing ID is just desperate and irrational. Religious individuals would be much better served by claiming/believing that "God invented evolution," instead of trying to proclaim that the myths in the Old Testament are literal descriptions of the formation of life.

Well put and thanks for the contribution (the 'Like' button has disappeared).

 

[Bum]

Is 'Intelligent Design' a sound hypothesis?

No. :coffeepap

 

[NWO_Spook]

……..it's your argument that comes from incredulity. You can't bring yourself to acknowledge the possibility.

Incorrect, I did not state it wasn't a possibility, but there is no evidence to support it. There is a profound difference between the two.