Philosophy Now Forum

How did life on Earth come about? Recently the buzzword among those dissatisfied with Darwinism has been ‘Intelligent Design’. But isn’t this just another name for Creationism? Not so, argues Todd Moody.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/31/Inte ... _Catechism

The article seems to me to be the theory you have when you don't really have a theory.


"ID does not adduce scriptural warrants for its claims and holds that that it is an open empirical question whether anything like special creation might have occurred. ID doesn't depend on it, nor is it committed to proving it."


To me this would be a bit like David Hume saying that causation is linked to induction and we reason by associating constantly conjoined events. By the way, I'm not committed to proving it.

My position is, lifeforms are inherently different from inorganic matter and so complex they could not have begun spontaneously. It seems logical that the original lifeforms on Earth came from outer space, probably embedded in a comet that struck the planet after it cooled to the point where simple lifeforms could survive. These simple lifeforms probably came from a warm-watery planet that was blasted apart long ago when its companion star exploded, producing the dust and gas that coalesced into our own solar system.

How many times this transfer of simple lifeforms from one world to another, across interstellar distances has been repeated, is anyone's guess, but somewhere along the line life initially began, probably created by the same agent that initiated the universe in the first place. I'm intrigued by GWF Hegel's suggestion that at the instant of creation (e.g., the big bang) the Idea or potential for sentient life already existed, although that leaves the mechanics of the transition from inorganic matter to lifeforms still a mystery. The supposed intervention of the creator in designing and initiating those first lifeforms seems to be the only plausible answer, IMO. - CW

Ginkgo wrote:The article seems to me to be the theory you have when you don't really have a theory.


"ID does not adduce scriptural warrants for its claims and holds that that it is an open empirical question whether anything like special creation might have occurred. ID doesn't depend on it, nor is it committed to proving it."


To me this would be a bit like David Hume saying that causation is linked to induction and we reason by associating constantly conjoined events. By the way, I'm not committed to proving it.

I don't see how your opening sentence is supported by the line you quoted.

Philosophy Now wrote:How did life on Earth come about? Recently the buzzword among those dissatisfied with Darwinism has been ‘Intelligent Design’. But isn’t this just another name for Creationism? Not so, argues Todd Moody.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/31/Inte ... _Catechism

There was an interesting case that came to a decision in the courts,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District

From the article,

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)"

thedoc wrote: There was an interesting case that came to a decision in the courts,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District

From the article,

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)"

I'm well aware of that case, but I don't think the actual evidence presented supports the stated conclusion. I certainly don't think a court decision settles any philosophical question.

tmoody wrote:

thedoc wrote: There was an interesting case that came to a decision in the courts,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District

From the article,

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)"

I'm well aware of that case, but I don't think the actual evidence presented supports the stated conclusion. I certainly don't think a court decision settles any philosophical question.

Probably not, but it certainly settled that particular legal question. I would also suggest that the arguments in this case would be useful in conjunction with philosophical arguments.

thedoc wrote:

tmoody wrote: I'm well aware of that case, but I don't think the actual evidence presented supports the stated conclusion. I certainly don't think a court decision settles any philosophical question.

Probably not, but it certainly settled that particular legal question. I would also suggest that the arguments in this case would be useful in conjunction with philosophical arguments.

How so? What argument was presented in the Dover case that has strong philosophical implications?

tmoody wrote:

thedoc wrote:

tmoody wrote: I'm well aware of that case, but I don't think the actual evidence presented supports the stated conclusion. I certainly don't think a court decision settles any philosophical question.

Probably not, but it certainly settled that particular legal question. I would also suggest that the arguments in this case would be useful in conjunction with philosophical arguments.

How so? What argument was presented in the Dover case that has strong philosophical implications?

I didn't mean to imply that any of the arguments had strong philosophical implications, just useful as background information. The actual case centered on the intentions and the sources that the writers of the statement used. What came to light was that they were using material and just substituting Intelligent Design, in place of Creationism, the case was not about philosophy, it was about presenting religious concepts in a science classroom.

thedoc wrote:
I didn't mean to imply that any of the arguments had strong philosophical implications, just useful as background information. The actual case centered on the intentions and the sources that the writers of the statement used. What came to light was that they were using material and just substituting Intelligent Design, in place of Creationism, the case was not about philosophy, it was about presenting religious concepts in a science classroom.

I think that is correct. I would further add that no one can rule out the possibility that Intelligent design is incorrect. That's not the issue. The issue is that it doesn't qualify as science and so can't be taught as a science.

Ginkgo wrote: I think that is correct. I would further add that no one can rule out the possibility that Intelligent design is incorrect. That's not the issue. The issue is that it doesn't qualify as science and so can't be taught as a science.

I'm not interested in the question of what should be taught in science classrooms, but I am interested in the question of whether ID is a scientific theory. Can anyone offer a straightforward argument that shows it isn't?

tmoody wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: I think that is correct. I would further add that no one can rule out the possibility that Intelligent design is incorrect. That's not the issue. The issue is that it doesn't qualify as science and so can't be taught as a science.

I'm not interested in the question of what should be taught in science classrooms, but I am interested in the question of whether ID is a scientific theory. Can anyone offer a straightforward argument that shows it isn't?

Yes, I can if you like. And it isn't science; no question about it.

Ginkgo wrote:

tmoody wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: I think that is correct. I would further add that no one can rule out the possibility that Intelligent design is incorrect. That's not the issue. The issue is that it doesn't qualify as science and so can't be taught as a science.

I'm not interested in the question of what should be taught in science classrooms, but I am interested in the question of whether ID is a scientific theory. Can anyone offer a straightforward argument that shows it isn't?

Yes, I can if you like. And it isn't science; no question about it.

Sounds good. Please provide the argument.

tmoody wrote:
Sounds good. Please provide the argument.

First of all I would like to restate what I have said in previous posts and in other threads.

I am not saying that ID is incorrect and I am not saying that it shouldn't be taught in theology and philosophy classes.


Having got that out of the way, I can give you a few arguments to start off with.

Firstly, ID is a cosmological argument for the existence of a first cause (God). Again, I am not saying that the argument isn't valid. What I am saying is that science doesn't deal in first causes.

Secondly, ID cannot be proven false. Science theories must always have the potential to be proven incorrect.

Thirdly, ID isn't a legitimate hypothesis because all scientific hypotheses must be testable. There is no scientific experiment that can be set up to prove the existence of God.

Ginkgo wrote: First of all I would like to restate what I have said in previous posts and in other threads.

I am not saying that ID is incorrect and I am not saying that it shouldn't be taught in theology and philosophy classes.

I'm new here, so I haven't seen those other discussions, but thanks for the clarification, and thanks for presenting argument.

Firstly, ID is a cosmological argument for the existence of a first cause (God). Again, I am not saying that the argument isn't valid. What I am saying is that science doesn't deal in first causes.

I disagree with that characterization of ID. As I see it, ID is an argument TO design, not an argument FROM design. Also, biological ID (as opposed to cosmological) doesn't deal with first causes in the sense that I think you mean. Cosmological ID, aka the Fine-Tuning argument, may be problematic in that respect. I'll have to think about it.

Secondly, ID cannot be proven false. Science theories must always have the potential to be proven incorrect.

It's generally recognized that this condition is too strong, since it would also rule out many other theories that are accepted as scientific. I think it's more reasonable to say that there must be observations that would count against a scientific theory, as well as observations that would count for it. ID satisfies this condition.

A simple thought experiment. Maybe you remember the (ancient) film "2001: A Space Odyssey". In that film, a monolith is discovered on the Moon.



I see no reason why it wouldn't be a legitimate scientific inference to conclude that the monolith was intelligently designed, even in the absence of any knowledge at all about the identity of the designer, purpose, etc. The inference would be based on observation alone.

Thirdly, ID isn't a legitimate hypothesis because all scientific hypotheses must be testable. There is no scientific experiment that can be set up to prove the existence of God.

I agree, but ID can only support an inference to a designer, not to God, so this argument isn't relevant. Simply as an inference to a designer, ID is testable.

Take a sample ID inference:

1. Structure X could not be formed by natural means.
2. If something is not formed by natural means, it is formed by the action of an intelligent agent.
3. Therefore structure X was formed by the action of an intelligent agent.

That argument is logically valid, but it is certainly capable of being tested. Premise 1 is open to testing, and premise 2 is subject to falsification, if someone can come up with an alternative way that things can be formed.