RoR: Forum

Great article, Chris. But:

This article will attract trolls. Please don't feed the trolls, guys. Remember, you don't owe anyone even one minute of your life.

Post 1

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 1:02am

Good explanation, but there is one problem to it. The way people are going to hear it is not from a critical POV, but has to be an honest explanation of the "fact-theory".

At least, the way you describe it might be the last solution, in case schools have to take it into their classes.

Post 2

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 1:13am

1) According to Christians, their God cares whether you live or die.
2) The laws of physics do not care whether you live or die.
3) Scientific theories cannot deviate from the laws of physics.
4) Therefore, scientific theories cannot include or invoke God.
5) Intelligent design invokes God.
6) Therefore, intelligent design, like all forms of creationism, cannot be a scientific theory.

I don't see how 4) follows from the previous steps, 1) to 3), of this argument.

When a Christian puts forth a theory about the universe that invokes God, it's not as if he's claiming that the laws of physics care whether you live or die.

Sure, the Christian will claim that God cares whether you live or die. But that's different than saying the laws of physics care whether you live or die.

Who knows, maybe the indifferent laws of physics allow for the existence of a God who cares whether humans live or die.

(People may start giving me all kinds of *different* arguments against the existence of God, but all I'm doing is questioning this particular argument.)

Post 3

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 5:22am

Chris --

I have the feeling that you are going to be receiving a very special guest. He is a very interesting personality that advocates the exact principles you describe in your article when you refer to ID namely that :

" Intelligent design is not, as I thought, a theory that God was involved in the design of organisms. Rather, it is a convoluted and counter-logical attempt to confuse people"

Get ready for some amazingly long winded rationalizations, ill advised inferences and subtle diversions mixed with petty and irrelivent comments and endless cheesy ad hominem assaults if you upset his pride. Just stick to what you said in your post, namely :

"The argument runs like this: Some branches of science, quite properly, study or search for the artifacts of intelligence. Therefore, any branch of science should be able to look for signs of intelligence. Therefore, evolutionary biology should look for such signs. This aspect of intelligent design should be used as an example of bad logic.

The argument continues: If signs of intelligence seem to appear, then this should be used as the basis of a scientific theory that life was generated with the help of intelligence. This is subtly contrary to how science is done. Not every theory is scientific; in fact, there are lots of non-scientific theories. A theory that rests on only positive evidence and that invokes or requires an undefined entity is doubly non-scientific. This aspect of intelligent design could be quite instructive in a theory-of-science module."

If you choose to engage him (and it might be wise to follow Adam's advice) stick to this basic counter arguement because it cannot be overcome by any amount of "knowledge" or any amount of ability to weave grandios rationalizations. Good luck to you.

- Jason

Post 4

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:36am

Science should be taught in science class, and should include things like physics, chemistry and biology among others, shown through theories that are objective, empirically testable, and predictive.

Religion is part of life and should be taught through scientific method. Giving the student an introduction to all major belief systems, their history, tenets et al.

Any attempt to brainwash our children, to impose non-objective, non-empirically testable, non-predictive beliefs on them by the force of teacher authority should be punishable like any other mental abuse of children.

Post 5

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 7:43am

This article isn't lampooning, or satire. It's just snotty.

Author: did you ever consider the person that might be a Fundamentalist, but saw intelligent design? ID is a way of looking at things within the traditional deist model, but it is more sophisticated than Fundamentalism, because it presents cosmology. My issue is not with ID itself, although I think of existence differently. My issue is with the people that whore it out. You can do that with any theory, if you think you can get away with it. The anti-evolutionists used that as part of their attack on teaching evolutionary theory in schools. What they learned was that a theory can be taught in schools, Blessed Be for that little epiphany they had...;)

Did you consider the fact that people who are considering ID as an alternative to their existing beliefs have displayed an openness to new ideas? Someone with an unformed spiritual/philosophical base (and/or, one who is unclear as to the origins of their current beliefs) isn't going to feel very engaged when they take a step out of the box, and then watch someone smack the shit out of something that, for them, represents a leap of "faith", as it were.

Isn't our time better spent educating? If you want to smack the crap out of the rightwing whackos, do it straight up. But, you will have some competition. I recommend these guys: www.landoverbaptist.com

I am not attacking, I am simply questioning the purpose.

Post 6

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 8:14am

I never see anyone talking about the real issue in relation to intelligent design. Libertarians, Objectivists, Classical Liberals all with responses ranging from wrinkled brows to raised voices over the teaching of intelligent design while people are still having children and then appointing them as bastards by not providing their education and setting them in the hands of the state to indoctrinate them at MY expense.
Just like B.B. said, "As long as I'm payin' the bills, I'm payin' the cost to be the boss."
As a single guy with no kids, more money comes out of my pocket to fund these government schools for bastards than the people who use them.
I say that we teach children that I created the universe and that I am instructing the world to abide by my commandments of Capitalism. If my Laws of Capitalism are followed I will allow any mysticism you wish to practice. After all, I'm paying for it.
I think Objectivists cannot see the forest for the trees on many issues including this one.
Capitalism was at its best when creationism had no competition and statism in the U.S. has had most of its friends come from secular collectives.
Don't buy the package deal. Eliminate statism and the knowledge of our origin will matter very little.

Post 7

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 10:45am

Chris,

As a plain vanilla Objectivist partial to Darwinism, I have this criticism of your argument. You knock down a strawman.

In other words, students would be taught just a bit of the philosophy of science, in simple logic:
1) According to Christians, their God cares whether you live or die.
2) The laws of physics do not care whether you live or die.
3) Scientific theories cannot deviate from the laws of physics.
4) Therefore, scientific theories cannot include or invoke God.
5) Intelligent design invokes God.
6) Therefore, intelligent design, like all forms of creationism, cannot be a scientific theory.

Point five does not follow from point four. ID does not invoke God. There's no doubt that many proponents of ID think that a deity is responsible for the design they believe exists in nature, but the ID hypothesis does not lead to that conclusion.

The flaw in all of the objections to ID I have seen in this forum is the failure to recognize that ID puts forth an objectively falsfiable claim of irreducible complexity in a wide range of biological structures. So ID is a scientific theory, which Darwinists have not refuted except to put up their own unverified counter-claims.

Again, I'll point out that theists think the standard model of the Big Bang supports their belief in God. Yet no argues we should stop teaching it, although scientists are recognizing how flawed that model is. So why is ID any different? I suggest this is because ID opponents often confuse Darwinism with evolution (broadly speaking the paleontological record of the Earth's fauna and flora changing form over time), therefore believe ID's challenge to Darwinism is a denial of evolution.

Andy

Post 8

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 10:47am

Adam,

This article will attract trolls. Please don't feed the trolls, guys. Remember, you don't owe anyone even one minute of your life.

Just idle curiosity. How minutes of your life are you going to spend repeating this message?

Andy

Post 9

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 10:51am

Rich,

As usual, a rational response to all the hysterics. You're one on of the sanest guys here.

Mr. Phoenix,

O'Connor is correct, if your list at the beginning of the article is mean to be a syllogism it is incorrect.

As to # 4) alone:

Therefore, scientific theories cannot include or invoke God.

It would depend upon how you defined "God". If you defined "God" as reality or the "Laws of Physics" (whatever they are), this statement would definitely be false.

Not every theory is scientific; in fact, there are lots of non-scientific theories. A theory that rests on only positive evidence and that invokes or requires an undefined entity is doubly non-scientific.

This is a good definition, but unfortunately for your argument the 'theory of evolution' relies on just such an 'undefined entity'. i.e., natural selection. Natural selection is a process upon which there is no agreement among scientists, some attribute it to one thing, some to another, some invent other mechanism altogether, but no one agrees with Darwin on the subject.

It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law; it is, after all, logically consistent. Again, we now know that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not universal. Your argument may turn out to be antiquitatem name=antiquitatem>Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

Mr. Reed,

I have asked you time and again for the definition of your incessant use of the word "troll". Since I have not received one, I assume it has some 'new age' significance that makes you sound like "the ancient, but still 'with it' computer guy"; and that it means anyone who holds an opinion (upon any subject) other that the one you hold.

and last and least, Jason:

Why am I not surprised that you would advise others to take Adam's advice? If you had a clue you would know that what makes SOLO different from all the other Obj/Lib sites that you could pontificate on, this is the only one that does not censor topics or opinions. Siding with Adam is a clear sign that neither of you appreciate that fact.

Post 10

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 10:55am

Andy,

kudos

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 11:31am

Robert D,

Natural selection is a process upon which there is no agreement among scientists, some attribute it to one thing, some to another, some invent other mechanism altogether, but no one agrees with Darwin on the subject.

Translation:

I can't understand Evolution, therefore the theory is wrong.

Post 12

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 11:38am

It would depend upon how you defined "God". If you defined "God" as reality or the "Laws of Physics" (whatever they are), this statement would definitely be false.

What a brilliant truism. What exactly are you trying to accomplish by saying that if you define God as being reality that the argument would be false?

Yes, we could be confusing and use the term God in a non-standard usage, just as we could say that the universe is a chocolate chip cookie, and then when challenged we could say "well, I was just defining 'chocolate chip cookie' as reality".

Post 13

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 12:02pm

Thanks, Robert.

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 1:14pm

On June 2nd Robert Davison wrote about the supporters of ID:

"I did not know this movement was restricted to those who believe in a supernatural agent. I though it subsumed those who believe in meddling by super-scientists from Atlantis or from aliens as well."

http://solohq.com/Forum/SoloScience/0072.shtml#10

Post 15

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 1:28pm

Yes, we could be confusing and use the term God in a non-standard usage, just as we could say that the universe is a chocolate chip cookie, and then when challenged we could say "well, I was just defining 'chocolate chip cookie' as reality".

It gets dicey. I don't believe there is such a thing as a standard usage. It is taken for granted in traditional U.S. culture that we are talking about the Biblical, Christian, guy in the sky. More or less. Kinda sorta.

Then, you have your angry, Old Testament God. Lots of smiting, generally very fickle. God without Xanax. Then you have your New Testament God, which is sort of like God if he had been sent out on one of those makeover TV shows. The Fundamentalists generally go for a hybrid version, using whatever serves the moment. This is BiPolar God (rapid switching type). I think robes and beards and so on are usually involved. It gets confusing because sometimes they make Moses and God look kind of the same- Like Jesus' dad and uncle. It's all very disturbing and hard to follow.

As to this whole troll matter, I remember the term from the old bulletin board days- at least as far back as when I was a sysop on the old CWRUNET/Freenet system. I think we used it in a dual meaning- an ugly image, obviously, but also from "trolling", as in dropping your load on a discussion that you really haven't followed, and then moving on to repeat that elsewhere. Like people who get drunk and then run around peeing on people's bushes at night. Not to be confused with a Lurker, which is reserved for the shy and the voyeuristic. You threw around the lingo in public because it was cool. You called it a CRT when you knew they didn't know that you were just talking about the goddamn monitor.

rde
I owe anyone 1 minute of my life, if I fucking say so.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 8/18, 1:32pm)

Post 16

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 1:42pm

Natural selection is a process upon which there is no agreement among scientists, some attribute it to one thing, some to another, some invent other mechanism altogether, but no one agrees with Darwin on the subject.

Isn't more the case that, like any other new theory, even the author of it later took issue with certain specifc aspects of his own work? There are various debatable areas of evolutionary theory, but my understanding of it is that they don't have enough merit to throw out the baby with the bathwater. That's normal science. Look at how quantum theory developed. Develops?

Post 17

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 2:29pm

Andy writes:
>Point five does not follow from point four. ID does not invoke God. There's no doubt that many proponents of ID think that a deity is responsible for the design they believe exists in nature, but the ID hypothesis does not lead to that conclusion.

Andy,

The ID hypothesis must come to rest on either 1) a deity, or 2) undesigned or accidental evolution at some point, or else faces a logically infinite regress (who designed the designer...?)

Jody Allen Gomez pointed this out in post 63 on the "Intelligent Design: What Does It Accomplish" thread. The Gramarian's response to this appeared to be that he was satisfied with infinitely regressive explanations, which is of course his prerogative.

- Daniel

Post 18

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 2:40pm

Chris said:

"it's better for kids to be exposed and immunized to twisted arguments, than to simply drum their heads full of facts (called "truth") and leave them easy prey for the first demagogue they hear"

Wow, that is so true... but so improbable that public education would accept such a schema. In college, surrounded by commies, christians, and rednecks (sometimes they're all three), I realize that this is probably what happened to many of them. Oh, if only Ayn Rand would be required reading...

Post 19

Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:09pm