[MD] Intelligent Design

[118]

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Steven Peterson
<peterson.steve at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>
>
> > [Mark]
> > Intelligent design does not require a God, but even that is despised by
> many
> > scientists and teachers. It seems that the only thing that is appropriate
> is
> > some nebulous randomness that progresses through chance.
>
> Steve:
> Intelligent design doesn't require a God but it does require a
> designer. ID allows for the possibility that the designer could be an
> omniscient and omnipotent being. If so, then it would be impossible to
> detect design since an omnipotent designer could design something to
> appear in every way like it was not designed. There would be no way to
> distinguished designed from not designed if we allow for such
> omnipotence. So ID with an omnipotent designer can not be science.
>

Yes, some of that I get.  The science comes in when we observe the design
and try to make attributes to the designer.  A hard chore, but how
architects minds work can sometimes be clued in by what they design.  So,
science cannot point to the ultimate because of its nature, but it can
broaden understanding to provide meaning.  If designer implies intent with
objective, then we can hypothesize on the intent and try to predict the
objective.  Some like to do that.

>
> William James pointed out the problem with Creationism 100 years ago.
> No matter what we observe we could hypothesize that it was designed to
> be exactly that way. No conditions could ever point to more or less
> evidence of intelligent design by an omnipotent being. In fact, even
> if our observations were completely different, they would be no more
> or less consistent with the hypothesis of ID than what we actually
> observe. ID theory can't tell us how the world _is_ because it would
> be no less true about any other imagined world that _ isn't_. It is
> impossible to find evidence for or against the hypothesis of ID and it
> is entirely irrelevant to science.
>

Science provides description, it does not create anything per se, but from
such description, it is possible to harness the intent.  Metaphysics is
similar in terms of the harnessing such intent.  I like to go for rides in
my head.  The anthropic principle, which is what you are describing above,
is considered science by some.  The anthropic principle alludes to
intelligent design, and has in fact resulted in the religious conversion of
some.

Any hypothesis can be disproved, one simply needs to know the premises and
validate or invalidate those with observation.  Anyone of them will do, that
is why it takes a good hypothesis to become a theory.  Sometimes the
measurements are hard to define, and it is there where the questioning
should start.  Many of Einstein's theories (to use an example) are still
under intense scrutiny, as they should be.  The point is to give us
something to look for.  ID is something to look for.  It can have meaning
and should not be dismissed as an illusion.

Hope this is understandable,
Cheers,
Mark

>
> Best,
> Steve
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>