Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: I Got Yer Intelligence Right Here 37

Journal by pudge

There is so much misunderstanding about Intelligent Design. On both sides, really, which is why so many proponents of it offend those on the other side, because they do a poor job of explaining it.

ID really only says one thing: that the root cause of how we came to exist was not by mere chance, but that it was designed by someone. It does not disagree with a single scientific notion or precept or principle, of any kind, because science can only say what happened -- i.e., this gene mutated, resulting in such-and-such, and so on -- not why it happened.

ID is philosophy, not science. You can't test it. You can't examine empirical evidence that can prove or disprove it. Oh sure, it draws heavily on science, just like the opposite position does: neither is science. And neither is new, either. They are new applications of the same argument we've been having for thousands of years: whether the universe around us is designed, or whether it happened by chance.

Now, I'd say that as such, ID is perfectly at home in the classroom (especially when your classroom is the home!); but only in the context of philosophy. But so too does "humans came into existence merely by chance" belong only in the context of philosophy, and unfortunately, it is often taught, either implicitly or explicitly, as though it were science; thus, ID has arisen as a reactionary political movement: "fine, if you teach kids we all got here by chance, we will teach them we didn't!"

It should be obvious why science is entirely inequipped to even begin to address these questions. That's why there is so much misunderstanding about this topic: the people most animated against it are scientists who really don't understand philosophy. Of course, on the other side, you have religious people who don't understand science. And neither side really understands the interaction of the two, which is where this discussion is supposed to take place.

For my part, I plan to teach my children in a fully integrated way when it comes to science, pulling from history and philosophy as science is taught. Teach them why the scientific method is used, what it is inadequate for, how our system of learning about the physical world evolved, and so on. And in such a structure, teaching ID won't even be necessary: it will be clearly implied. Which is really the point.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I Got Yer Intelligence Right Here More

I Got Yer Intelligence Right Here

Comments Filter:
  • Science has some strong evidence that radiation is a cause of mutations, which can lead to evolution when the result if favorable to the organism.

    It's a simpler explanation than a higher-level being altering the DNA.

    • Re:The Why (Score:2, Informative)

      by nandorman ( 742258 )
      Science has some strong evidence that radiation is a cause of mutations, which can lead to evolution when the result if favorable to the organism.

      But that is COMPLETELY avoiding the issue. Why does radiation cause mutations? And if we know that (which we do - there are molecular excitations when the chemicals absorb the photons), then why does that happen? And if we know that (and we do, it's because the photon's energy gets added to the electron's potential energy to give it some kinetic energy), the
      • That all sounds fine to me. Except what I'm getting from it is that the only real question is 'what created the universe?'

        If the question is also 'is a higher-being altering the outcomes of a system set in motion billions of years ago?', then that's where science seems to have the stronger evidence.
        • That all sounds fine to me. Except what I'm getting from it is that the only real question is 'what created the universe?'

          Yes, it eventually does get to that. Much of this is related to the Islamic "Kalam" argument, which sets up a series of dichotomies: either the universe has a beginning, or it does not; if it does, either that beginning was caused, or it was not; if it had a cause, either it was a personal/intelligent cause, or it was not. That sort of thing.

          If the question is also 'is a higher-being a
        • That all sounds fine to me. Except what I'm getting from it is that the only real question is 'what created the universe?'

          But what makes you say that? Physics is silent on the subject of what caused the universe to come into being. Totally silent. Not one little peep. Some hypothesize what created a particular universe inside a "multiverse," but that just begs the question of what created the "multiverse."

          Physics has nothing to offer us on the origin of the universe, so I'm not sure why you would
          • Sorry but this point only crossed my mind a few hours ago. Since I think the 14 day comment period for this journal is up in a matter of hours, I may end up posting it as a JE.

            So there's evidence this universe is expanding right? Is there evidence it has always been expanding? Going back in time, shouldn't that lead to the Big Bang? Isn't that a explanation on the origin of the universe? Even though it doesn't explain what preceded it? And if these statements are true, then the Big Bang belongs in sci
            • So there's evidence this universe is expanding right? Is there evidence it has always been expanding? Going back in time, shouldn't that lead to the Big Bang?

              That is evidence that in whatever state the universe was created, it was created expanding (unless it was contracting first). As you blow into a balloon, it never had a zero-point state even though it is continually expanding.

              But even so, that would be an argument against Creation Science, not against Intelligent Design, which would say "whether
            • And if these statements are true, then the Big Bang belongs in science classrooms too, doesn't it?,

              Oops. Missed this last part. IF those statements were true, then yes, it would belong in the classroom. Unfortunately, we have no evidence of "always been expanding." For all we know, it contracted for billions of years and then has been expanding for the last 15 billion or so.

              But even so, the BB IS taught in classrooms. That is certainly where I first learned about it. It's not nearly as well estab
              • I'd say sheer, dumb luck is a foolish choice of words.

                In a random, big bang-created universe, planets with life may indeed be statistically rare. Yet it's no surprise we exist because though life may be rare in the cosmos, there are perhaps a mind-boggling number of planets. Only one of them needed to have the right conditions for intelligent life to form.
                • In a random, big bang-created universe, planets with life may indeed be statistically rare. Yet it's no surprise we exist because though life may be rare in the cosmos, there are perhaps a mind-boggling number of planets. Only one of them needed to have the right conditions for intelligent life to form.

                  I can grant you all of that. But the point is that saying "it is random" is a philosophy, not a science. There is no way to predict it, there is no way to observe it, and there is no way to test it. By
                  • Saying "it is random" is a conjecture, which means it's not currently falsifiable. Randomness is the best scientific explanation we've got. We can flip a coin 10,000 times and the results will work out about 50% heads. That's observable randomness and chance. While the evidence may be weak, the important thing is that it stays within the known physical laws of the universe. This is what differentiates it from intelligent design which is metaphysical philosophy.
                    • That's observable randomness and chance.

                      No, you are not observing randomness. You are observing a set of results that follow your idea of randomness, which is not scientifically different from someone else observing the same set of results, and noting that they follow their idea of design.

                      Randomness is just one explanation, and there's no scientific evidence of any sort to support it.

                      the important thing is that it stays within the known physical laws of the universe. This is what differentiates it from int
      • Might be slightly off-topic. My high school electronics teacher (retired military nuclear engineer) said that the reason they attract is gravity. The same reason The Earth atttracts the Moon and the Sun attracts the Earth, they're bigger...lots bigger. That may have jsut been his theory and I don't have any sort of background in that area, I just remember being amazed at how quickly he could do logarithms in his head. Typically faster than I could type them into my calculator.
        To bring it more on-topic w
        • Might be slightly off-topic. My high school electronics teacher (retired military nuclear engineer) said that the reason they attract is gravity. The same reason The Earth atttracts the Moon and the Sun attracts the Earth, they're bigger...lots bigger.

          Off topic, yes. But brilliant! I love it; how Aristotelean of your teacher! Not that Aristotle believed in any forces (he believed that things just had "natural tendencies" like "it is natural for a rock to be on the ground instead of floating in the air
    • Science has some strong evidence that radiation is a cause of mutations, which can lead to evolution when the result if favorable to the organism.

      It's a simpler explanation than a higher-level being altering the DNA.

      No, it is not an explanation of any sort, let alone a simpler one. Sorry, but you're just not getting it. Fine, radiation caused a mutation. What caused the radiation? What determined the result of the mutation? Science does not have anything to say about this. Science cannot provide an ex
      • Are you saying E=MC^2 isn't evidence for understanding what caused the radiation? If science eventually has a unified theory of relativity and finds the universe behaves as this theory predicts, that isn't evidence for knowing what caused the radiation and why the mutation turned out the way it did?
        • No, it's not. Because then the question becomes why the unified theory is what it is.
          • But you declared science has nothing to say about what determined the results of the mutation. Except that a unified theory of relativity would have something to say.

            Now looking at why the unified theory works, that's going to involve lots of complicated math. Math that has proofs. The proofs will explain why the unified theory is what it is. The math stems from a bunch of logical assumptions such as 1=1 and 1 != 2.

            So even if science can't explain the origin of the universe, it may well be able to expla
            • So even if science can't explain the origin of the universe, it may well be able to explain why the universe is as we know it.

              I agree completely. Science is useful for "figuring things out". Why are the "things" there to begin with?
            • But you declared science has nothing to say about what determined the results of the mutation. Except that a unified theory of relativity would have something to say.

              Again, I am talking about root causes. So fine, you get your uniform theory, but why is it what it is?
        • E=MC^2 describes a rule. But as I said somewhere else in this thread, who made the rule?

  • Philosophy (Score:3, Funny)

    by nocomment ( 239368 ) on Friday August 19, 2005 @05:14PM (#13358268) Homepage Journal
    You don't know the history of philosphy Pudge, I do. You're glib. (sorry couldn't resist).

    I recently caught an episode of Focus on the Family, that was on ID [family.org]. I don't typically catch the show very often because it starts at 9 or 10pm (105.3 if you're interested), but the ID episode was really very interesting.
  • No problem. Just keep it the hell out of science classes. Teach it all day in philosophy, religion, mythology, or superstition classes, but it ain't biology.
    • No problem. Just keep it the hell out of science classes. Teach it all day in philosophy, religion, mythology, or superstition classes, but it ain't biology.

      Again, though, but the same thing applies to any idea that disregards ID as a possibility. If you assert the opposite of ID -- that we got here by mere chance, without any intelligent designer -- then you are expressing a philosophy, religion, superstition. Something that "ain't biology." And this is taught in the science classroom a lot more often t
      • If you assert the opposite of ID -- that we got here by mere chance, without any intelligent designer -- then you are expressing a philosophy, religion, superstition.

        But that's not what is taught as evolution. Evolution is the proven scientific fact that species evolve and change by natural selection.

        It's not at all "random chance." That claim is a strawman* that is given by anti-evolutionists who don't like to admit that they think we were all smushed together out of mud [newyorker.com] and lived with the dinosaurs

        • But evolution is not proven. That's just it. That's the whole point. It has NOTHING to say for instance on flagellar rotation "motors" in some bacteria. Evolution says series of small changes happen over time. Each mutation builds on another. Yet how can you account for these motors? They contain roughly 40 proteins that each make up a part of the motor. One part might be a shaft, one part is a propeller, there's even a rotating protien that acts somewhat like a crakshaft. If any one part isn't the
          • Given that the bacterial motor is made out of proteins, I think the radio should be made out of soil, rock, and plant matter, in a clearly biological appearance, as opposed to a plastic case and chips on a perfectly cut circuit board. That would truly give me pause about its origin.

            BTW, have you read of some of the apparently unintelligent design decisions? [sfgate.com]
        • But that's not what is taught as evolution.

          Well, one would hope, yes. But sometimes they do get conflated. But, neither would ID be taught "as evolution." That either is taught alongside evolution is the issue.

          Evolution is the proven scientific fact that species evolve and change by natural selection.

          Well, no, that is not proven scientific fact, though that's beside the point at the moment. It seems likely, but as we have counterevidence (nature selecting weaker mutants, and not selecting stronger ones)

          • But many people believe -- and teach in schools -- that these mutations happen by pure chance, which is (using your words) expressing a philosophy, religion, superstition.

            DNA mutations are unpredictable. That is to say, there is no way to know in advance what base pairs will change or what they will change too.

            By my definition that is random as a roll of the dice.

            Now many would claim divine influence in things that cannot be predicted. That's why lots were cast to find out that Jonah was the one c

            • The contraversy is over the meaning of 'random', or 'mere chance'. Random simply means unpredictable.

              It depends on who is saying it, which is why I used the term "mere chance," which emphasizes the notion that there is nothing behind it: it just happens, with no intelligence, no design, no personal cause.

              Technically speaking, in terms of science, the word "random" has no such implied meaning, but many people who use the word do imply such a meaning, which is what ID is a reaction to.

              This bugs deists, becaus
        • But that's not what is taught as evolution. Evolution is the proven scientific fact that species evolve and change by natural selection.

          Um, not quite right. NO ONE, not even creationists, deny that species evolve. Of course they do. We get taller, moths change colors, wolves become docile and domesticated. No problem.

          The problem comes when someone starts claiming that species that can't interbreed both have common ancestry (speciation). There has yet to be a clear-cut case of speciation, whether y

  • ID really only says one thing: that the root cause of how we came to exist was not by mere chance, but that it was designed by someone. It does not disagree with a single scientific notion or precept or principle, of any kind, because science can only say what happened -- i.e., this gene mutated, resulting in such-and-such, and so on -- not why it happened.

    If this is what ID is about, then why does it keep coming up in the context of biology? That amazing coincidence is why ID has a reputation for being

    • If this is what ID is about, then why does it keep coming up in the context of biology?

      I've already explained this, several times, at length -- including in the journal entry itself. It's because something else keeps coming up in the context of biology: that these things happen because of mere chance, which excludes the possibility of intelligent design. So therefore, the other side reacts, and tries to push their view in response.

      Your entire post is one big red herring. People have limited time and ener
  • While you get the Philosophy aspect of ID... most IDers don't and want ID taught in school AS SCIENCE. That is what pisses anti-ID people off. Recently Natural History magazine had a nice overview of the ID "debate" and may of the anti-ID people conceeded it as a philosophical question, but articulately explained such and explained that they were against ID because all the proponents (including BIG name people in the ID science group... also represented in the article) were for ID as a SCIENCE.

    ID isn't sc
    • While you get the Philosophy aspect of ID... most IDers don't and want ID taught in school AS SCIENCE.

      Apart from my skepticism at your modifier "most": why do you think this constitutes me not getting it? I think I was quite clear in the discussion that I understand this. The point of the piece was not to tell anti-ID people what ID is (although that's part of it), but also to tell pro-ID people what ID is: yes, it is not science.

      That is what pisses anti-ID people off.

      Yes, but what pissess off the ID peop
      • I know that you know this. You have a tremendous grasp of the subject.

        But they DO have something to worry about. More schools are being pushed by the "wedge" tactic of prominent ID groups to "teach the controversy" and teach something that is has no science in it.

        As far as the "life is random" shite, that is only a prominent attack against anti-IDers. Most focus on the total (GAPING) misunderstandings of basic science priniciples and specific ideas in cellular biology, genetics, and so forth that most p
        • But they DO have something to worry about.

          Not from ID, no. From what some who push ID also want to push, yes. ID is not the problem, it's in some ways a means to something else, but you can accept ID as valid while still guarding against the real dangers.

          The "anti-ID" people -- if they are truly interested in teaching science -- should also come out against the atheists in the scientific and teacher communities who want to teach, as science, that our existence is mere chance, and they should also welcome

Slashdot Top Deals

"So why don't you make like a tree, and get outta here." -- Biff in "Back to the Future"

Close