Question:
i would really like to discuss intelligent design scientifically...?
just curious (A.A.A.A.)
2008-03-05 11:17:25 UTC
why do people keep referring to the bible, when i ask questions such as, "is it possible that there is more than one intelligent designer?" assume for a moment you're in a science class in which intelligent design is being taught. you know religious texts such as the bible, the quran, and torah are not suitable references. so, you have to explain why you have hypothesized that there is only one creator, scientifically. how do you do it? wouldn't the most scientific answer be that we do not know whether there is one or multiple designers? explain, and remember, you can't use religious texts as references (sorry, separation of church and state).
28 answers:
Adorabilly
2008-03-05 11:23:38 UTC
because you can't. As soon as you bring in the supernatural (ie the designer) who is outside the scientific laws, then you lose the credibility of science.



If it cannot be measured, or sorted then it isn't science. If you cannot replicate it in the lab it is not science. Intelligent design is not science. Just another term for "god did it."
2008-03-05 20:18:49 UTC
I been reading a lot of ID science papers online. They are really good at poking holes in evolutionary theory. The Cambrian explosion example is great because hypothesizes seem new and comparatively weaker. With everything the ID moment had written, it doesn't say anything about the designer or much about their design ability. Heck, maybe we are alien poo. However, holes don't point to anything expecially poo. Believe whatever you like is not science.



This is where the theists and atheists disagree. The theists believe that because humans do not have all evidence, they cannot make logical claims against a creator. However, I think this is *** backwards. Absence of evidence points to nothing; therefore making no claim or against is the more logical choice. ID Scientists don't have evidence there was an intelligent being prior to Cambrian Explosion. They never produced any evidence besides analysis of other's work. (I would give them much more credit if they did.)



**edit *** Craig, your "scientific and logical" arguement proves nothing. You say scientists believe in a dot of matter. Because we are a chain of events, there must be something that caused the first one. So it must be God. How does this prove anything? Your arguement fails and shows bias because you stop the causation when you reach God, your goal. If everything truely needed a cause, what caused God? He existed forever? He has none? We know as much about "God's creation" as we do about the universe. This leads us to somehow God was created then somehow created the Universe. In the end, the origin is not define or intelligent. This is what I don't understand. Why bring in another variable to complicate the equation. We don't know what caused the universe or if it needs a cause or origin. If there is any supernatural forces driving this "Big Bang", it's the physics and math scientists have not discovered yet.
marcus
2008-03-05 19:37:17 UTC
Hold on a minute--you are assuming you are in a science class where intelligent design is being taught? That should not be happening at all. Intelligent design is nothing more than "creation science" repackaged to try to get around the supreme court ruling that "creation science" is a religious concept without any scientific merit. Intelligent design takes out God by name, 6,000 year old earth, dinosaurs on Noah's ark and all the other trappings of "creation science" but keeps in a supernatural creator. That alone makes it pseudoscience (false science) and that should disqualify it from being taught in a science classroom. It's not just bad science, it's not even science at all. Any explanation of the natural world that invokes the supernatural, whether a particular supernatural creator's name is used or not, is clearly and without question NOT science. If you are in such a class, get out by all means!!!!!!!



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Note on Mike M's argument--of course we can't do these things. But if one has even the most basic understanding of how evolution works, one would understand how these things could evolve. Someone (an Intelligent Design proponent) made the same argument about a simple mouse trap (I think it consists of 5 parts). It won't work if all the parts are not there. True, but it was later pointed out that even missing 3 of the parts, it still was functional, but as something else (a tie clip). The point here is that the assumption that all parts of a complex system had to evolve all together for the function we now see them participating in together or the system could not have evolved at all is false. So are the statements that "Chance Alone" could not have resulted in complex systems because evolution does not operate by chance alone! There must be changes in the genetic material (that's where the randomness or chance is because the changes are caused by random mutations) sure, but without NATURAL SELECTION evolution would not occur.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sorry Questioner, but that definition of intelligent design only serves to prove my point. Science does NOT ALLOW us to attribute anything to an UNKNOWN SUPERNATURAL POWER. It would be convenient though if we could. For example, whenever we come to a stumbling block when doing research (for example, if we just can't seem to isolate that enzyme that must be changing chemical A into chemical B, we can just say, "Oh, there's really not an enzyme working here at all. It's just the Intelligent Designer speeding up that reaction" and then move on from there. We can't do this because science has certain standards to go by, one of which prohibits resorting to the supernatural to provide answers. What is frightening is that the proponents of ID want to redefine science itself to allow for the supernatural. Everyone of all religious faiths as well as those who have no religion should be fighting against this!
honky275
2008-03-05 19:25:15 UTC
Intelligent design seems to be a compromise between creationism and evolution, but in actual use it turns out to be a way to sneak God into the schools.



You're asking for a scientific answer to a religious question, so there is inherent conflict in your proposal. Religion puts forth answers that science cannot provide - where did we come from? What happens after we die?



As science provides more answers, religion becomes less important. Remember that ancient cultures had rain gods, sun gods, harvest gods - concepts that science can now explain pretty well.



The problem with intelligent design as a scientific concept is, like religion, it can't be proven or disproved. Most people just use it to justify their faith and reconcile it with whatever science they are given.
2008-03-05 19:22:33 UTC
the universality of the DNA code in all living organisms indicates that life was "designed" only once. Ditto the similarity of basic metabolism pathways of photosynthesis and respiration.

It equally well supports evolutionary theory, but you were asking for evidence which could get applied to argue for a single designer. As Haldane said, that designer had also an inordinate fondness for beetles.



Edit: there is no apparent necessity that particular DNA codons code for specific amino acids. E.g why is AUG a start codon and not GUA. This relationship appears to be arbitrary (probably based on whatever ribozymes happened to work out first) and it is unlikely that different designers would have used the same pattern. Though that would not exclude a team of collaborators, but I don't think gods have ever received renown as team players (just look at Olympus...) and can you imagine that a god who gives as a law not to have any gods besides him as part of a godly team?
2008-03-05 19:27:43 UTC
'Intelligent Design' is pseudoscience at best.



Religious beliefs like creationism are not falsifiable since they rely on you to suspend your disbelief and accept things on 'faith'.



There has been no physical evidence, proof, or testable analysis provided by Intelligent Design proponents to support their ridiculous 'theory' - which can't really even be considered a theory, since in order for something to actually be considered a scientific theory, you don't start with what you think is the truth, and then spend your time proving it. Instead science starts with an idea, and immediately tries to disprove it, and if they cannot, they will submit it to peer review, where other people will attempt to disprove it.



Anything that can stand up to this testing without requiring the tester to accept the supposed result on faith is then considered to be fact for all means and purposes unless new evidence comes into play (which is why science is self-correcting).
Morey000
2008-03-05 19:24:14 UTC
Scientifically, an intelligent designer could have done a much better job. Perhaps giving us a separate breathing tube from our eating tube so we'd never choke? (don't laugh, dolphins and whales have it).



Or, allowing our eyes to see a broader bandwidth. We are completely insensitive to nearly all of the electromagnetic spectrum, much of which will kill us. Why not have the smell capability of a dog? Or the sight of an eagle? Why design a creature that is completely and totally helpless for about the first 4-5 years of life. The list goes on and on.



If you were a super intelligent being, wouldn't you have made some improvements to the design?
MCSHughes
2008-03-05 19:28:54 UTC
There's no answer using the proposed limitations of your question, nor should there be. Why limit the only thing that actually makes sense? The Bible is the ONLY suitable reference (the others you quoted don't give information relating to intelligent design).



The key to Intelligent Design is that something/someone did it. That entity/ties isn't defined. The key difference to Creation Science, is that we know the same facts as both evolution and intelligent design. We just know that God is that designer.
Craig R
2008-03-05 19:34:05 UTC
No problem.



Science tells us that the universe came into existence as the result of the Big Bang. Billions of years ago, all matter in the universe was compacted into an infinitely small dot. This seems like a physical imposibility, and to a certain extent it is. It is so impossible that the dot immediately exploded with tremendous force, which we call the Big Bang.



All matter existing as an infinitely small dot is an inherently unstable situation. As soon as that situation develops, the dot explodes. So where did the dot come from? It cannot be the case that the dot was there for a long time (or forever), waiting to become the universe.



The dot couldn't have evolved from something else, because it already was everything. There wasn't anything for it to evolve from. There couldn't have been anything "before" the Big Bang because time itself began at that point. So there's nothing for the dot to evolve from.



So where did that dot come from?



For answers we turn to science. Science is the search for causes. What was the cause for the dot? A thing can't cause itself. Nature can't cause nature. Therefore, any "scientific" discussion of origins isn't really "scientific" at all, if you accept the definition of science that requires that the explanation be naturalistic, because the origin of all nature can't be more nature.



But we want to talk about origins, and we don't want to bring religion into the picture. So let's keep the discussion scientific and talk about "The Cause". The Cause is the cause of the dot. For now we're not calling it Allah, Jehovah, God, or Darwin. Just The Cause.



What do we know about The Cause from simple deduction and reasoning?



1. The Cause is infinitely powerful. It brought the entire universe into existence.

2. The Cause is willful and therefore personal. It chose to bring the universe into existence instead of doing whatever it was doing "before" the Big Bang. (It couldn't have been forced or fated to cause the Big Bang because then that cause would be The Cause and would be indistinguishable from -- and therefore identical to -- The Cause.)

3. The Cause is infinitely intelligent. It knew how to bring all the matter in the universe into existence where there was nothing before.

4. The combination of willfulness and intelligence implies design. The Cause made the universe in a specific way so that it would function according to the laws we see in operation.

5. The Cause is supernatural. That is, it exists outside of nature. This is obvious since all natural things were in the dot that The Cause brought into existence.



Without citing any religious documents, we've arrived at the only possible conclusion about The Cause. The Cause (or cause) of the Big Bang was supernatural, brought about through intelligent design, by an intelligent designer.



The only way to deny these arguments is to require that there not be a supernatural origin to the universe. This begs the question. You can't reasonably come to a conclusion ("no supernatural designer") before examining the evidence that is intended to lead to a conclusion.



Intelligent Design flows naturally from the observations we've made about the origins of our universe. Logically, there must be a cause for every effect, there must be a designer for every design, and the cause for all natural things can only be supernatural.



So to your question: If there's more than one designer it would be difficult to deduce from the facts we know. Did one design the other? How can we conclude from logic that there are two (or more) designers?



Perhaps there is an argument; I don't see it. I think I've shown a reasonable argument for one designer.



To address your subpoint -- no religious texts. One of the conclusions that we come to when we posit an intelligent designer from the facts at hand is that he/it must be completely different than we are. God exists outside time and space. As a result, God is unknowable apart from his self-revelation. That is, he must tell us about himself (sorry for the masculine pronouns; English is awkward in that respect) or we can't know him.



It's a separate question, but the point is that the Bible is the record of God's revelation of himself to humans. Interestingly, as we examine the logical and scientific facts we come to the conclusion that God must reveal himself in order to be known. Then we look for that revelation and find the Bible, a book which claims to be the revelation of an otherwise unknowable God -- completely consistent with our logical argument.



While its historicity, accuracy, etc. can and should be questioned and debated, there's at least the beginnings of an argument here for including the Bible as the revelation of the nature of the otherwise unknowable intelligent designer.



Good question. Thanks for asking.
Questioner
2008-03-05 22:13:42 UTC
Well, there isn't a microscopic stamp on organisms that says, "Made by the Judeo-Christian God" if that's what you mean.



So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every "creation" story, even aliens seeding life on this planet.



Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes. What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts (they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light). And we want intelligent design to at least to be presented. Unlike leprechauns and a flat earth, etc., a significant percentage of the (tax paying) population believes in ID.
Xander Crews
2008-03-05 19:22:03 UTC
Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.



By attaching religion to Intelligent Design (as many Christians are quick to do), they are defeating the purpose.



In order to discuss this scientifically, you need to go to a different section. These people are not capable of distancing themselves from their religions to this point. It's best (perhaps NECESSARY) to approach this theory with no preconceived notions and an open mind.
2008-03-05 19:22:49 UTC
You can't really discuss the so-called intelligent design scientifically because, at some point in any equation, you have to account for God rubbing his magic lamp and -- poof -- there was light, or people, or tapioca pudding, or whatever God was of a mind to create that day.
dreson k
2008-03-05 19:23:54 UTC
your question is impossible to answer I'm afraid. There is a lot of evidence that points to intelligent design, it does not matter really how many designers there are or what where or who really .



the THEORY of evolution has many gapping holes in it and they are getting larger every year not smaller.



I am not a Christian or a believer in a faith I just recognize that evolution as it is stated today and in darwins say does not hold the water that is should. All the EVIDANCE that supports it is cercumstanctial.
Elana
2008-03-05 19:21:49 UTC
You get into an interesting paradox: Does your God have a God himself? If so, is God really God?



Ultimately, you can never know...



Any science will require the method of producing a theory and then coming up with tests to promote or refute the theory ...



Anything else just isn't science.
vérité
2008-03-05 19:21:29 UTC
"Intelligent design" cannot be discussed scientifically. Its a religious anti-science movement that can be summed up like this:



"My God made everything instantly"
john wondering
2008-03-05 19:29:25 UTC
Intelligent design cannot be debated intelligently. It is virtually a dogma of the catholic church - Thomas Aquinus I think!
Master Ang Gi Guong
2008-03-05 19:23:59 UTC
My experience is based on facts as i have lived them. From worshiping other forms of Deity i have learned that there is only ONE-- the other ones never gave me strength, direction, signs of existence or goodness that remained as the ONE now KNOW exists.If not for this "DESIGNER" i wouldn't exist, considering the blatant suicide attempt i made without leaving a note or letting any one know my plans.i was brought back and told it wasn't my life to take but the 4 other humans in the room denied earing it and saying it.
miyuki & kyojin
2008-03-05 19:23:29 UTC
I regret to inform you that ID is not scientific at all. It uses pseudo-science and bad science, just like its unlamented predecessor creation science (the supreme oxymoron).
2008-03-05 19:26:52 UTC
Creationist scientists became Creationists because they got tired of being asked for evidence....
colder_in_minnesota
2008-03-05 19:20:39 UTC
"...[Discuss] intelligent design scientifically...?" Can't be done. The phrase is an oxymoron.
2008-03-05 19:23:32 UTC
discuss the reality of a black hole with out using any scientific

theories or information as references.
2008-03-05 19:22:21 UTC
Gianni Versace was brilliant !!
death from above
2008-03-05 19:24:42 UTC
how do you explain scientifically there is more than one designer... how do you do it ? I am all ears... please cite scientific sources... (sorry, you must cite scientific sources)
Earl Blue
2008-03-05 19:22:15 UTC
Hard to find an interlocutor, I fear
nasha fatima
2008-03-05 20:46:53 UTC
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

Would you please tell me, who born first? science or human?

Human or world ?

World or Univers? Scientifically.....?

Who is intelligent designer ? Scientifically.....?
El Duderino
2008-03-05 19:21:49 UTC
b/c god said let there be an earth, and there was an earth. then god said let there be corn dogs, and there were corn dogs; and they were delicious.
Mike M.
2008-03-05 20:40:54 UTC
This is not to defend the present-day political view called Creationism which asserts that the Bible says that the universe and living things were created in 24-hour days a few thousand years ago, but you should know that, in fairness to the Bible record, the Bible clearly allows an indefinite amount of time for the creation of the universe in its opening words in Genesis 1:1 & 2. In verse two, it plainly says that 'darkness' was over the earth, not the universe or heavens. The following four "days" do not use the Hebrew word for "create", but "make", and apparently deal with the clearing of a cloud cover, 'making' first light, then sun, moon and stars visible in the sky. Of course, to this day the majority of planets' surfaces are still obscured by cloud covers. And Gen. 2:4 clearly shows that the "days" were not the 24-hour variety, calling ALL SEVEN "days" ONE "day". (There is an accurate, modern-English "Bible online" at http://www.watchtower.org, if you don't have one handy, but it's always good to check your own, too.) The Bible is unnecessarily getting a bad rap in all of this.



You are absolutely right. Absolute interpretation of any genuine evidence of intelligent design can only prove just that, that some things were intelligently designed. By whom would be a separate matter that would have to be proven, too.



However, you should know that there is evidence for some sort of intelligent design, in spite of the way it is misrepresented by some "fundamentalist" religious groups.



A bird called the Blackpoll Warbler has been tracked flying from Alaska to New England and then out over the Atlantic, catching the Jet Stream back to South America, then flying back all the way to Alaska every year.



If somebody asked us to construct a flying machine that can fly from Alaska to New England to South America and back unaided, could we? But suppose they also asked us to make it weigh less than one ounce. Could we? And no one may build it--it must build itself, because that is what the Blackpoll Warbler does in its egg, doesn't it? Feathers, dual TV cameras, flight computer and all. From a speck in an egg. Would we even try? Could the US government? The entire University system, with an impressive array of bright students, knowledgeable professors and able administrators? All those advanced human brains connected together by the Internet? So how much sense does it make to say that blind, unthinking Chance just "accidentally" did so through blind, unthinking evolution?



My young school friend pointed out that since we have about 100 trillion cells in our body and each has about 5 feet of DNA, that makes about 100 trillion times 5 feet, or 100 billion times 5000 feet (about a mile), or 100 billion miles of perfect code that is required to make us a body that works. Since the characters (the "letters") that that code is "printed" in are actually the size of molecules, that makes a lot of "typing" to give us a body. Could we type that much without making a mistake, since any mistake would cause a genetic weakness or birth defect? Could blind chance?



Another thing. Ever tried to swat a fly? Not necessarily easy, right? Know why? It has to do with the fly's navigational system. It has a single vibrating rod in its abdomen, and as it changes direction in flight, it senses the changes in the vibrations of that rod and is able to dodge you, fly and land upside down and backwards. What would the Air Force pay to have flying and navigational systems that good?



How did the fly manage to evolve such a system? Even if it evolved the vibrating rod, what good would it be without the nerves to send the signals from the rod to the brain? And the section of the brain to interpret the signals? And the correct instructions to interpret them? And the correct instructions to the part of the brain that controlled the wings as to what to DO about those signals? All AT THE SAME TIME. Wouldn't that be a remarkable coincidence? I ask people, "Could YOU sit down, right now, and write the code for such a set of instructions? And if your ten billion well trained and coordinated neurons put together can't do it, is it really reasonable to think that flies did it by themselves?"



The fly has a complete navigational system that is self-constructing (in its egg), self-reproducing, self-programming, self-correcting, that can fly upside down and backwards, avoiding dangers and locating and recognizing fuel (food), that requires even MORE entire, completely developed systems that even large groups of highly educated humans cannot or are only now beginning to be able to copy (and only by intelligent design), all microminiaturized into a space smaller than the head of a pin, with the code for it in characters that are the size of molecules (I wonder how many characters per inch that works out to? Pretty hi-tech data storage).



So I ask people, "In your experience, how many complete flying and navigational systems do you know of that have happened completely by accident, with no intelligent thought or design?" "Did you ever read the story of all the thought and work needed to design and build a flying machine, as told by the Wright brothers themselves? So how scientific is it to say that it just happened by blind accidents in the case of the lowly, incredibly complex fly?"



All of the animal and plant world is full of examples like these. Your body is, too. Johns Hopkins University made the newspapers by making one enzyme. It must have been pretty hard to do. It was no accident. But your liver manufactures over nine hundred enzymes, all necessary for you to live, and no one thinks about putting THAT in the paper, or giving credit for that accomplishment to the One who deserves it. "Could have happened completely by accident" (which is what evolution equates to, isn't it?) But if it could happen so easily, simply by accidents of evolution, then why put the university in the news because it was able to produce ONE?



On a higher level, when you are amused at a puppy or a kitten playing, enjoy a beautiful sunset, unselfishly help someone else, there is no "survival" value in that. Why do we have these innate abilities and inclinations that have nothing to do with "survival of the fittest," but only serve for our enjoyment or the benefit of others?



So the evidence is that there is a Creator. And the fact that he created not only humans, but bodies that can appreciate and enjoy good food, music, art, marriage, children, and so on takes this Creator out of the realm of a Thing or Creature or Force of some sort and shows that the Creator must care a great deal about us.



Parents communicate with their children. Even computer designers communicate with their inventions. It would only be natural for our Creator to communicate with us, and not just starting today, either. The Bible gives evidence of being such a communication, containing accurate science and principles that produce caring people and secure, happy families, whether rich or poor, when people know it well and obey it.



But as for us being God, I don't know much, but I know that NONE of us is able to design (much less build) a self-constructing, self-programming, self-correcting navigational system, much less a self-reproducing flying machine hooked up to it to use it, microminiaturized into a space the size of a simple fly. And the same could be said for all the parts of our body. If you lose ANYTHING, no one yet can make you another one that works and feels as good as the original. And that includes your built-in 20hz-20,000hz stereo system (your ears), your twin self-focusing, self-adjusting 3-D motion picture cameras (your eyes), digitally interfaced into you own personal PC that is equal to 10,000 contemporary research computers (your brain), that requires no keyboard and you can work just by thinking about it, and that had "Face Recognition" a thousand years ago, a system to fuel your body with taste buds that can enjoy your fuels like ice cream, watermelon, and steak (nothing like it in modern technology), your genuine all-terrain vehicle which can climb walls, mountains, ladders, and go for miles on just a peanut butter bar (your legs, arms, and body). So Whoever created us not only is smart but also very nice to give us all that, FREE. And he deserves all the appreciation we can muster up, don't you think?



(This is only to give evidence of the existence of a God. It does not defend the immoral, unsupported, contradictory and unscientific things that often-mistaken humans have done and taught in the name of God and the Bible...)



For more information, you might want to see http://www.watchtower.org/e/20020608/, "Reconciling God and Science."



Best regards,

Mike
2008-03-05 19:19:57 UTC
isn't that why they are so often homeschooled....so they don't have to use correct sources??


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...