Arguments against the validity of intelligent design?

[PIT2]

What are the best arguments against the validity of intelligent design?

 

[Smurf]

that question presumes that intelligent design has validity.

 

[out of whack]

What are the best arguments against the validity of intelligent design?

I will not claim that my argument is the best, just something that makes sense to me: the hypothesis of a designer for the natural world implies something that is outside of nature, which puts the claim outside the realm of what is verifiable, which makes it equivalent to a superstition.

 

[PIT2]

that question presumes that intelligent design has validity.

Of course intelligent design is a possibility.

I will not claim that my argument is the best, just something that makes sense to me: the hypothesis of a designer for the natural world implies something that is outside of nature, which puts the claim outside the realm of what is verifiable, which makes it equivalent to a superstition.

Not necessarily, it could be a designer in (as opposed to 'of') the natural world, like humans are part of nature, yet they are intelligent and design things.

 

[out of whack]

Not necessarily, it could be a designer in (as opposed to 'of') the natural world

No it cannot because if the intelligent designer is natural then it would itself need to be designed by other designers. This hypothesis repeatedly implies designers of the designers, unless it leaves the natural world. At that point of course, it becomes superstition. Either way you look at it, the idea of a ready-made intelligent designer is incoherent and really not serious.

 

[nabuco]

[it is] equivalent to a superstition.

I would think it is a superstition to assume there is nothing beyond the natural world. It's certainly not a rational proposition.

The best argument against Intelligent Design is actually far more mundane: as scientific theory, it does not quality; as philosophy, it's an interpreation of Christian theology not supported by most Christians*; as practical knowledge, it's completely unpractical.

ID is just a silly fad.

(*the Catholic Church does not endorse it)

 

[out of whack]

I would think it is a superstition to assume there is nothing beyond the natural world. It's certainly not a rational proposition.

Interesting take. I suppose it depends on how you differentiate between natural and supernatural.

 

[nabuco]

Interesting take. I suppose it depends on how you differentiate between natural and supernatural.

I said "beyond nature". Supernatural means "above nature". It's not the same thing.

You can't claim something doesn't exist just because you can't perceive it with your senses.

 

[raolduke]

It doesn't exist subjectively. One may go through life without ever knowing that certain things exist or not.

 

[out of whack]

I said "beyond nature". Supernatural means "above nature". It's not the same thing.

Alright, I will simply use "not natural" in this thread from this point on. Other adjectives are ill-defined and unnecessary. So to rephrase, I suppose it depends on how you differentiate between natural and not natural.

You can't claim something doesn't exist just because you can't perceive it with your senses.

Then it's lucky I didn't do that.

 

[PIT2]

No it cannot because if the intelligent designer is natural then it would itself need to be designed by other designers.

It doesn't have to be other designers, it could design itself. Intelligences that we can observe in nature (humans for example) do this aswell. They change their lifes, their bodies, their environment, etc. with their intellect.

 

[Crosson]

Intelligent Design Advocate: "Your telling me that you would rather believe that all these complex structures in the universe arose from nothing, from no one?"

Rational Being: In the face of all the collapsed galaxies that have occurred at staggering spatial and temporal distances from our small corner of the universe, how can you believe that an anthropomorphic "grey white beard" god did all that? Why would he do it?

Intellgient Design Advocate: "We don't claim to understand how God works, we are not meant to understand how God works, but his presense is evidenced by splendous creation.

Rational Being: "Then certainly, according to your own reasoning, this splendid and powerful God of yours must have a creator, since he is too awesome not to have been designed".

IDA : "But God always has been, and always will be."

RB : Isn't that a double standard? Why can't we say that the universe always has been and always will be?

IDA : *Loops back and repeats the first thing he said*

 

[PIT2]

The best argument against Intelligent Design is actually far more mundane: as scientific theory, it does not quality;

Thats not an argument against the validity of intelligent design. It would be, if science were the one and only path to absolute truth. Only then one can say that that which is outside of science, equals being outside of reality. But this isn't so.

as philosophy, it's an interpreation of Christian theology not supported by most Christians*; as practical knowledge, it's completely unpractical.

The idea that life/universe was created, can be completely dissociated from any biblical texts, and probably has existed far longer than christianity has. Besides, a grudge against religion is not really a proper argument against an idea. Otherwise, one could say that the reference of israel in the bible is an argument that israel doesn't exist.

U could argue that religion has a rather negative influence on society, but still this doesn't argue against the validity intelligent design. Clusterbombs are intelligently designed yet create much suffering.

 

[PIT2]

IDA : "But God always has been, and always will be."

RB : Isn't that a double standard? Why can't we say that the universe always has been and always will be?

IDA : *Loops back and repeats the first thing he said*

Actually this is usually the other way around. Whenever any intelligent design advocate says that intelligence has always been/is timeless/etc., the RB often have a problem with that, because apparently, it is only rational to believe that intelligence and consciousness can arise out of randomness. And it is only rational to believe that randomness can exist forever/be timeless.

Also please everyone, try to avoid talk about christianity and god, because its not allowed on this forum. Let's just leave it at the fact that intelligence does not equal god. Humans are intelligent and from this fact we can accept that intelligence is simply a part of the natural world.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course intelligent design is a possibility.

That doesn't automatically make it a scientifically valid possibility, and I think that was Smurf's point. You are looking at the issue backwards: to be a theory, the idea needs valid scientific arguments for it, not just the lack of arguments against it.

Now you didn't use the word "theory" in your post, but this is "PhysicsForums" and science is also the criteria by which ID proponents say the idea should be judged. It would, for example, be perfectly valid for ID proponents to claim it as a pure religious belief...

 

[Smurf]

I was just want to re-emphasize Pit2's point that ID is, as a philosophical concept (and this is the philosophy forum), completely separate from religion, as well as from the politics going on in the states right now.

 

[russ_watters]

Doesn't philosophy at least have to be based on logic?

In any case, I.D. is not a philosophical idea it is a repackaged religious idea masquerading as science. If Pit2 really want's to examine the validity of the concept of a "god" itself, he shouldn't have used "intelligent design" as the label.

The general idea of a creator-god has no basis whatsoever in philosophy or science. It isn't logical and there is no scientific evidence to support it. It is pure religious faith.

 

[russ_watters]

Thats not an argument against the validity of intelligent design. It would be, if science were the one and only path to absolute truth. Only then one can say that that which is outside of science, equals being outside of reality. But this isn't so.

Could you define "science" and it's domain of applicability for us?

How could an idea about the origin and evolution of species not be within the domain of science?

 

[PIT2]

That doesn't automatically make it a scientifically valid possibility, and I think that was Smurf's point. You are looking at the issue backwards: to be a theory, the idea needs valid scientific arguments for it, not just the lack of arguments against it.

But the topic isn't about ID being a valid scientific theory. The topic would be 2 posts long if it were:

ME: hey guys, is ID a scientific theory?
Other: No, it can't be falsified.

Such a 'discussion' leaves open fully the question of whether ID is true. So the idea here was to bring up arguments against the validity of ID as an actual aspect of reality.

Surely all the "ID is rubbish" arguments in the last decade or so haven't been entirely baseless?

Now you didn't use the word "theory" in your post, but this is "PhysicsForums" and science is also the criteria by which ID proponents say the idea should be judged. It would, for example, be perfectly valid for ID proponents to claim it as a pure religious belief...

There are many philosophical ideas that arent scientific theories. Of course i welcome any science brought forth for or against ID, but other rational arguments are welcome too.

 

[PIT2]

Doesn't philosophy at least have to be based on logic?

Are there any logical arguments against ID?

Is there something inherently illogical about the existence and influence of intelligence in the natural world?

 

[PIT2]

Could you define "science" and it's domain of applicability for us?

How could an idea about the origin and evolution of species not be within the domain of science?

I don't know the exact definition (one can google it with "define:science", but regardless of which definition i post here, there will be some who disagree with it, and i can't risk that), but i have seen arguments on this very forum which named a few criteria according to which ID was disqualified as a scientific theory.

They were:

1. Intelligent design lacks consistency.[21]
2. Intelligent design is not falsifiable.[22]
3. Intelligent design violates the principle of parsimony.[23]
4. Intelligent design is not empirically testable.[24]
5. Intelligent design is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

 

[Smurf]

Doesn't philosophy at least have to be based on logic?

Yes, and that's what I meant in post #2, I.D. isn't inherently illogical. Although I would argue it doesn't exactly possesses logical validity either.

In any case, I.D. is not a philosophical idea it is a repackaged religious idea masquerading as science. If Pit2 really want's to examine the validity of the concept of a "god" itself, he shouldn't have used "intelligent design" as the label.

Almost every philosophical idea is a repackaged religious idea. Freewill, Ethics, Metaphysics, even existentialism started with Kierkegaard.

And examining the concept of God is very different from examining the concept of I.D.

The general idea of a creator-god has no basis whatsoever in philosophy or science. It isn't logical and there is no scientific evidence to support it. It is pure religious faith.

Science might not have reason for examining the creator-god, but there are a lot of brilliant philosophers who have some really really important and extremely interesting insights into the concept.

The truth of the matter is, there are argument for and against every position about the existence of god (Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Ignosticism, Apatheism - and those are just the ones I can spell) in both Logic, and practical evidence. So, sure, the Scientific method may not have anything to say about it, but that just sucks for science, not philosophy.

 

[Moridin]

The most obvious being of course that there has not yet been a biological structure that scientists have needed to invoke ID to explain.

It is important to notice that intuitive is not the same as logical. Quantum Mechanics is unintuitive, but its mathematical logic is very rigid. Basing philosophy just on things that are intuitive is generally not the best approach.

ID is intuitive for humans, because every painting needs a painter, every building needs a builder and so on. These are various every day phenomena in which a design implies a designer and comparing them with biological entities is intuitive. Ultimately, it is the same old non sequitur watchmaker analogy and ideas of William Paley.

 

[PIT2]

The most obvious being of course that there has not yet been a biological structure that scientists have needed to invoke ID to explain.

I think that irreducible complexity doesn't make much sense, because first of all its virtually impossible to demonstrate that a biological structure couldn't have arisen through random mutations. And secondly, if intelligence evolves organisms gradually, then such structures may not appear at all.

Im curious what kind of structure it would take to demonstrate objectively that it couldn't arise through random mutations and natural selection.

ID is intuitive for humans, because every painting needs a painter, every building needs a builder and so on. These are various every day phenomena in which a design implies a designer and comparing them with biological entities is intuitive. Ultimately, it is the same old non sequitur watchmaker analogy and ideas of William Paley.

In science current day observations are often extrapolated into the past. The big bang can be inferred from seeing the universe expand nowadays. Similarly, the existence of intelligence as a highly creative force in organisms today can be used to extrapolate the existence and involvement of intelligence much longer ago.

 

[Evo]

Pit2, the problem here is that you specifically used the term "Intelligent Design" which is the religious product of the Discovery Institute.

Pit2 you can open another thread and ask the generic questions "can something design itself", or "what created the universe", that would be acceptable, just leave references to ID out of it.