[MD] Intelligent Design

[Ian Glendinning]

And Steve, science is irrelevant to creation.

(I see no value in debating what design / designer means BTW)

Ian

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Steven Peterson
<peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> `
> 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
>