Stephen: <<See above. There is "evidence" of planning for the future. This is a *prediction* of Intelligent Design theory and a *problem to be explained away* by Darwinian theory.>>
What evidence of 'planning for the future' do you have ? Or is it 'interpreting after the future has happened'.
PM>After all, after the fact one can always invoke such argument
>with little predicting power.
Stephen: <<You cut out the bit about "Darwin" and "generations of students" in Gould's classes all wrongly "predicting" that lungs evolved from gills:>>
So what ? This is why they go to school, don't they ? To learn about what is known ?
Stephen:<< If Darwinism has such great "predicting power" compared to Intelligent Design (otherwise what is your point?), why do all the Darwinists get this order wrong first off?>>
Nice strawman. I guess that the 'flat earth' shows that creationism is lacking any predicting powers as well ?
PM>As a scientific explanation, intelligent design loses on many fronts. But it does make for an imaginative explanation though.
Stephen: <<Pim, we've been through all this before. As I have pointed out to you many, many times, "Intelligent design" is not even *eligible as a candidate* "scientific explanation" under the current ruling
materialist-naturalist philosophical orthodoxy. Intelligent Design is excluded as a "scientific explanation" *apriori* by materialists:>>
Irrelevant to my argument.
>SJ>But as Denton shows, redundancy is a major feature of both
>intelligent design and nature:
PM>Indeed. So why the need to invoke intelligent design when there
>is no reason to do so ?
Stephen: <<Denton's argument is that the evidence of "nature" is that "there" *is*
"reason to do so".>>
Denton perhaps believes that nature has a reason ? But perhaps the end result has nothing to do with future planning or reason ? Reason is what we like to add to what we observe (and perhaps do not understand).
PM>After all nature itself is quite capable to generate what we see and we have yet to see 'intelligent design'.>>
Stephen: <<This is just begging the question, ie. assuming the conclusion in the
premises:>>
I was refering to Denton's remarks.
Stephen:
<<We do not *know* that "nature itself is quite capable to generate what we see". You only *assume* it on naturalistic philosophical first principles. And as for "we have yet to see 'intelligent design'", we see it all the time in our own plans and actions.>>
We were not talking about our own actions. But indeed you have touched a good point. Perhaps our own plans and actions make us presume that nature has a 'goal' ?
Stephen: <<And in any event, except for the most trivial examples of evolution,
they are as invisible as creation:>>
Only to those who are blinded by the evidence and the argument is based on a lacking understanding of what science is.
PM>It cannot be observed, it cannot be predicted but hey, it only
>requires a little bit of faith to invoke the tooth fairy explanation. It
makes for interesting stories but poor science.
Stephen: <<A good definition of Darwinist macro-evolution! Thanks.>>
Except for the fact that it can be observed, predicted and requires no faith and is based on good science. The same thing can not be said of 'intelligent design', something which you admit falls outside the realm of science anyway.
PM>After all let's assume there is 'intelligent design'.
Stephen: <<Which just further confirm my point that the apriori scientific position
is that "there is" *not* "intelligent design". And the very fact that you put it 'intelligent design 'between quotation marks shows that you are still not really assuming that "there is intelligent design".>>
Why assume something when 1) it is unnecessary 2) there is no supporting data 3) it only complicates matters. Sure there is intelligent design but not in nature.
PM>Who is the designer?
Stephen: <<For scientific purposes it is not necessary to identify "the designer" to accept design. Archaeologists may never know who designed an artifact but they accept it *was* intelligently designed:>>
Archeologist might not have been able to identify the exact person, but they do know who in general were responsible for the structure. The fact that 'intelligent design' cannot even address this simple question already indicates taht it is perhaps looking for something that isn't. Archeologists at least could identify the origins of the structure, perhaps not the individuals though. But without potential suscpects, there is no reason for suspision.
PM>Another species from outside our worlds ?
Stephen: <<Thanks. This is a good example. If a message was received from "another species from outside our worlds" it would not be necessary to identify who the sender was to accept that it was
intelligent:>>
That depends on the message. But perhaps the 'intelligent designer' (for which no evidence exists) could have been an extra terrestrial, no supernatural powers at all, just advanced technology.
PM>The Christian God ? Or any of the many other Gods ? They all
>make equally well candidates of this 'intelligent designer', or should
>that be equally poor?
Stephen: <<Intelligent design theory is not necessarily religious. One could accept intelligent design without worshipping the Designer. For example, Michael Denton and Fred Hoyle do this.>>
Yes, but in general 'intelligent design' is abused by creationists to imply that there must be a god and that there is a theory of intelligent design, even when data supporting the theory are severly lacking and the data are equally well or beter explained by non-intelligent theories.
Stephen: <<Nevetheless to Christians the Intelligent Designer is *by definition* the same one true Creator-God that they worship. But that does not mean that He may also be the same supreme God that some other religions worship. For example, St Paul affirmed that the Unknown God of the Greeks was the Christian God (Ac 17:23).>>
Or perhaps he is merely one of the other gods ?
On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:17:58 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
PM>Yep I am a believer although I do like to play devil's advocate
>every now and then.
Stephen: <<In view of the above, are you being *serious* in arguing against Intelligent
Design, or are you just playing the "devil's advocate"?>>
Not at all. The idea of 'intelligent design' as a science is lacking in 'theory', prediction, and supporting data and by virtue of 'Occam's razor' defeated by theories which do not necessitate this 'invisible' and perhaps 'all powerful' designer.
God is based on faith alone. If we pretend that we can find him with science then we are doing Him as well as ourselves a real disfavour.