[MD] Intelligent Design

[Steven Peterson]

Hi 118,


>> 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.
>>

118:
> 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.

Steve:
But we can't infer design without knowing something about the
designer. As I said, if we suppose that the designer may be an
omnipotent being, then there is no way in principle to distinguish
something designed from something not designed.


Steve:
>> 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.
>>

118:
> 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.

Steve:
A scientific theory tells you where to look and what to look for. ID
can't do that. It makes no predictions, and is therefore entirely
irrelevant to science. It is unfalsifiable and therefore unverifiable.
No evidence could ever confirm it since it is impossible to even
imagine evidence that could ever be inconsistent with it. Unless we
can say what it would be like for ID to be false, it is meaningless to
science to say that it is true.

`