There are 3 choices, 3 votes for GaryCGibson's debate

Intelligent Design is a Scientific Hypothesis

Intelligent Design Theory is a scientific challenger to natural selection theory...

• Intelligent Design Theory is a Scientific Theory

  Intelligent Design theory is a scientific hypothesis making testible, observable assertions about construction(s)of physical forms in the Universe. Logic does require that if structures of primordially created intelligent design exist in the Universe a Designer and Creator existed to form them. Rational public education could not exclude that truth (if found to be so) from scientific curriculum because it would upset believers in an atheistic construction of a dumb random universe of chance (DRUNC). If the Universe actually does have elements of intelligent design in it, an ostrich-like ignorance of it would ill-support compulsory public education in the United Sartres of America.

  The separation of church and state of the U.S. Constitution wasn't intended to separate valid scientific inquiry from public education. If there is intelligent design in the Universe the search the consequences for humanity of ignorant destruction or disrespect of those 'semantic' 'artifacts' of design in physical structures could be significant. A valid scientific theory arsenal should include the possibility of intelligent design.

  Evolution theory itself is not the champion for which intelligent design theory is the number one contender; evolution theory is perhaps implicitly an element of the Biblical book of Genesis in which God 'evolves' the Universe over a period of 'days' from a stirring of the quiet 'waters' (perhaps akin to a Higgs Field exploding at superluminal speed into an inflation of space-time)...natural selection as the sole 'mechanism' of evolution is what intelligent design theory is pummelling presently. Natural selection theory has been a subject of rival theories since it's conception and synthesis with evolution by Charles Darwin.

  *What time values regarding the Age of the Universe Does Intelligent Design Postulate? *

  So far as I know intelligent design theorists are ambivalent about the time scale or age of creation of the universe unlike strict Biblical 'fundamentalist creationists' whom generally set the age of the Earth and Universe somewhere between 6000 and 25,000 years before present. Intelligent Design theorists simply look for artifacts or evidence of intelligently designed structures in the universe that could not be explained by any natural process of evolution. Thus intelligent design theorists are happy enough to examine the explosion of multi-cellular life forms in the Cambrian era some 540 million years ago and postulate in some detail why that could not have been a naturally occurring development explicable within parameters of natural selection...that is, they postulate and demonstrate why natural selection could not have developed and sustained to the present era 37 of those 50 life-forms or phyla. The contribution of intelligent design theory is thus a useful analytical tool providing discussion input on the processes that selected life on Earth. Criticism of theories should not be banned from public education.

  *How the 'Anthropic Principle' differs from 'Intelligent Design' Theory*

  The anthropic principle does not seek to find artifacts of intelligent design as 'substructures' in the overall structure of the cosmos or of life as might the biolgist Mr.Behe in considering how flagella of microganism developed. The anthropic principle instead is simply an aesthetic appreciation of the overall 'beauty' of the Universe in numerous ways from mathematical relations and it's rationality and coherence to the phenomenal coincidence of physical constant values that allow radiation to be at the right degree to allow life to exist, for atoms to exist in the right ratio's, and for physical values of constants to be set to such a level as to allow the universe to exist as it is fit for human life on Earth.

  Some of these values are alpha-G (gravity fine structure constant), alpha-w (fine structure constant of the weak interaction), alpha-s (fine structure constant of the strong interaction), alpha-e (electromagnetic fine structure constant). An article titled 'The Just So Universe' by Walter Bradley in 'Signs of Intelligence' goes over these values that are remarkable. 'The Cosmic Blueprint' by Paul Davies as well covers points of the anthropic principle.

  The anthropic principle is more of a philosophical point with dead-reckoning comments about the cosmos and its physical values, yet it is useful nonetheless for both multiverse theorists and intelligent design theorists of a theological or natural disposition (there is the possibility that super-intelligent beings created this universe designing it from another universe and setting it rolling with the right values-in which case finding evidence for the ultimate designer of all-possible-universes would be a step removed.

  *'Cosmos and Creation; The Literal Values of Genesis'*

  This universe or multiverse is the subject of observation and conjecture, testing and hypothesizing in a disciplined way. Non-scientists such as myself with a background in the social sciences and humanities also may look over the shoulder of the scientific community and contemplate their findings usefully comparing that body of knowledge to what the Bible book of Genesis has regarding cosmological structures and the history of the Universe.

  Humanity has always needed to interpret the book of Genesis within it's own learning paradigm that until recently was quite minimal in substnative cosmology. It is a mistake of a significant nature in discovering new scientific knowledge and abandoning the old to also throw out the book of Genesis for-itself that was linked through human intepretation with the old secular cosmology--it is the case that the faulty data is in humanity and not in the Bible, yet the centuries old association of secular learning with literal Biblical values is difficult to detach. It is difficult to read the Bible with unbiased, socially unconditioned learning yet the importance of the truth of the message of the Bible demands that it be done.

  I will here republish a brief intro to my book of brief essays on interpreting some cosmological points from the Bible (Creation and Cosmology; The Literal Values of Genesis), as time does not permit further writing here presently..

  How is Biblical Scripture 'cosmology' like modern physical cosmology? Luke13-18"Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it?" 19"It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it."

  Do the 'days' of Genesis represent time periods of uncertain extent in the form of literals as do algebraic literals represent variable numerical content?

  Does Second Peter Chapter 3 exemplify the uncertainty? "8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." The age of the antediluvian Patriarchs given this conversion value is 2,453,235,000 years. Paleontologists suggest that multicellular life on Earth started about 2,600,000,000 years before present.

  Voted for by GaryCGibson.

  View 10 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • bobrocks
    December 31, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    *"Logic does require that if structures of primordially created intelligent design exist in the Universe a Designer and Creator existed to form them."* I applaud your well written essay and arguments. However, the above quote makes a good deal of your argument fail. While I agree that it is a true statement within itself, it postulates that a Creator exists. The Higgs reference you make later is also unprovable until they find Mr. Higgs particle (elusive little bugger, isn't it?). The coincidences you mention are just that: coincidences. There is evidence that life could have spontaneously arisen. The problem I have with creationism is generally one of finding the creator. Thomas Acquinas tried to prove God's existence in the 1200s, but the methods he used were severely flawed, though not entirely without merit. I can't prove to you that God doesn't exist, merely offer the lack of proof of his existence and a more scientific take on the possiblities. I'll check out Mr. Bradley's and Mr. Davies work. Sounds interesting. Thanks for pointing me to it! Finally, I take my hat off to a man of faith and conviction that you seem to be. It's always interesting to hear what you have to say and debate with you. Salaam.
  • 
    GaryCGibson
    January 3, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    reply to Bobrocks

    I just had a significant amount of writing lost. So I'll repost briefly. *** Symbolic logic has some technical value; predicate and propositional logic are good tools. The phrase you quoted doesn't entail the necessity that God exists in order for it to be true...instead it has the premise that if intelligent designs are found in primordial structures of the Universe then an intelligent designer made them. The opposite conclusion would be false, or absurd...that is that intelligent design isn't the result of intelligence. **** Higgs fields may be more demonstrable then Higgs particles-yet recall that refined descriptions in math theories with falsiable hypothesis about relations of matter and energy have used ideas or terms like particles or waves as analogous descriptions, and field values for strings or whatever they ultimately are may be all that is ever available at very small scales. *** Creationism is one theophysical theory, yet there are others. I have been writing about Biblical or scriptural associations with physical cosmology, yet that is more a matter of interpretation of scriptural language and meaning with evaluation of parameters than an effort to provide scientific evidence of intelligent design. *** I do not believe it is necessary to 'prove' the existence of God, instead it is a matter of faith, and belief that the scriptures are true. In reading about natural history and the Bible, one may find many interesting ideas and possibilities to consider. The Higgs field is a scientific hypothesis and not a creationist one incidentally, and cosmologists have the difficulty of staying out of philosophy and remaining in science with testable hypothesis and verifiable results in repeatable methodology. *** Scientists now have philosophical difficulties with cosmology I would venture, as some of the possibilities in cosmological theory haven't the possibility of confirmation or falsifiability I would think...there may be one less universe than the infinite number some conjecture to exist. Infinities are hard to confirm. *** I think that faith is neccessary for salvation through Jesus Christ, while the agnostics or atheists and otherwise misinformed with their lack of faith just drift off perhaps forever if they can biomedically create extended life. Yet they will be without the ultimate rationality of god, all will inevitably end up in a hell without God. A thousand trillion trillion year old universe with immortal information-theory resurrected souls without God might not be pretty.
  • bobrocks
    January 3, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I totally agree it's a matter of faith. I don't believe in god because my faith is in science. You seem to believe in god becasue it makes more sense to you. The similarities are interesting, but just that: similarites. The fact is, faith is completely irrational. I'm technically an atheist, but then again, my sect of Buddhism is. I *was* a biblical Christian for about 12 years of my life. I like biblical Christianity, and really, Jesus was a cool character. But then again, I love Sunnism and Hinduism for similar reasons, and were I to believe in god, I would lean towards Sunnism. Not to knock Chritianity, because according to the Bible, I'm still saved and thereby still good as far as heaven goes, but I don't necessarily believe in that sort of afterlife. That's part of my faith. I'll concede to your Higgs argument, as I like superstring theory, and what you say is perfectly true and makes sense. Salaam.
  • Joao Camilo
    January 8, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    You should stop writing so much when you start with a falsehood such as I.D being a testible observation - It is not possible to have test of God under scietific method. ID is a fiction , faery tale that Darwin himself kicked off long ago and primitives like you insist to bring back as if you people had any notion of scietific methology, sophist.
  • • bobrocks
      January 29, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      Actually, the idea of ID is arguable. Irreducible complexity (which I think is a bad idea) can be argued for. Neither evolution nor ID are fully testable. I believe evolution to be more testable, though. Salaam.
    • • Joao Camilo
        March 22, 2006
        Edit | Reply
        ID can not be tested at all. Evolution can, as Evolution is a fact. Everyday you see your dog, you can see it. Irreducible complexity can be argued and tested, but not under the scope of ID.
  • 
    GaryCGibson
    January 9, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    Intelligent Design Can be Scientifically Tested

    You might learn something about scientific method Jose, and stop begging the premises argumentatively. Try reading a little logic-term logic is good if you can get beyond classical logic. *** I have written about some of what intelligent design theory is here and elsewhere in allphilosophy. *** Certainly there are tests for intelligent design in many fields, including english composition...where one can discern what is a result of reason and what is ketchup on the page without intelligeble meaning. One can establish criteria for intelligent design in the search for extra terrestrial intellgence in communication theory, and certainly one might do so in other aspects of the waveforms of the cosmos. One may do so without prejudice as to results, and should do so for scientific accuracy. *** To rule out a priori intelligent design overall or in various aspects of the universe is manifestly unscientific. Intelligent design is a facinating possibility subject to rigourous scientific testing...what if aliens had created the local galactic group an left traces of intelligent design in it at some level...how would one discover that without looking? **** Scientific method establishes valid test criteria that can be proven true or false, and the premises of testing must add up to the conclusion if true, and is otherwise false. Like formal logical the premises and may be implicitly incapable of proving the conclusion if improperly constructed. Regardless of one's faith in God or not, the possibility of intelntional designs in various aspects of nature is readily evident as a reasonable conjecture-what better way for aliens to transport themselves around the Universe than to intelligently design and execute 'shortcuts' through space time...one must be open minded to do science I think, perhaps you should try. *****
  • • Joao Camilo
      March 22, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      Yes, Jose. You should stop pretending you know something because you read in Wikkipedia. There is no tests for ID, because the Designer is beyond test. Wake up. That would end anyone trying to argument about knowing scientific method, but you still. Are you going to post a link to another creationist blog as "evidence" ?
  • 
    GaryCGibson
    January 11, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    Intelligent Design Can Contain Evolution Theory

    The art of design in engineering like that of design in most fields of human endeavor, if not all, is the product of intelligence instead of accidence. One may develop criteria if necessary even with scientific parameters to determine if anything existent is a product of intelligent design, or perhaps dumb design or non design. Nature of course has a panoply of beautiful patterns that some might associate with design prima facie, yet in the absence of particular examples of attributable natural patterns to specific or acknowledged creator or creators beside scriptural references, persuading anyone that nature is a product of an intelligent design may be difficult, and of course if nature and the cosmos is taken naively or with non-specific or irrelevant scientific analysis regarding possible intelligent designs in nature, it would be difficult for skeptics to recognize such if they were actually perceptible to normal human or sensorily enhanced senses. *** Intelligent Design may be used as a valid scientific hypothesis. Yet to avoid confusion, it should be affirmed that a scientific hypothesis is a scientific conclusion, but is instead a testable experimental theory. In the history of science, astrophysics and quantum mechanics a vast amount of learning has occurred in the last century to expand human frontiers of knowledge, in addition to expanding the physical parameters of experience with space telescopes and particle accelerators, theorists have speculated about the age and shape of the universe based on new insights. Many of these theories are fascinating and valuable yet they try to fill in vast areas of uncertainty at micro and macrocosmic levels. Below the Planck length particles are just not observable, light cannot travel faster than 186,000 miles per second, the observable light from distant stars and galaxies may be red-shifted and as much as 13 billion years old, there is no standard universal time throughout the universe as it is known presently-instead time is local with space, and the passage of space-time is affected by speed of motion of the traveler. Throughout life each individual and particle travels its own world line of combined time and motion…the faster one travels the less time passes relatively, yet the Universe itself is thought by some to be expanding forever toward a cold, depleted state of maximum entropy and ‘death (a sort of eternal hell for souls that are eternally beyond the realm of God incidentally). While learning all this marvelous data about the Universe or potential universes and the fewer or more dimensions, scientists can presently begin to search for more parameters of intelligent design in the cosmos as they are able to and interested in. *** To search for intelligent design evidence in nature is not to stipulate the existence of intelligent design in nature as that would be quite unscientific. Instead intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis that can be used somewhat forensically by astrophysicists or mathematicians to consider diverse fields to observe signs of intelligent design in the physics of things. *** Intelligent design might be placed into almost anything, anywhere in the Universe in theory, unless one is an absolute atheist and simultaneously a denier that any other life form than human could possibly exist anywhere beyond Earth, and also that humans of any form could not have existed before intelligent life began on Earth for whatever reason some time ago to place intelligent design into anything existing. *** The possible potential for intelligent design in nature is obvious when one considers the very small micro world of nano-engineering and the very large macro-world of astrophysics. Advanced civilization beyond even this galaxy or universe may have micro-packaged nano-machine structures in simple or complex forms to produce any sort of structure or composition, astrophysicists may have moved stars, precipitated novas or stellar explosions, built Dyson spheres, reengineered d.n.a. (that would be biologists of course), arrayed gravity ‘wells’ in such arrays as to form Morse ‘code’ designs and so forth. Intelligent Design if discovered would present the issue of discovering who the designer is for some skeptics, but at any rate the parameters for adding consideration of intelligent design to research parameters in many fields is an interesting and useful way to surpass even the work of S.E.T.I. *** Advanced civilizations may communicate and exist, effect life and time in ways other than simple space travel or electro-magnetic wave communication such as humanity has recently developed. Advanced civilizations may use quantum simultaneity or ‘superposition’ to communicate, and merely wait a disturbing of the ‘waters’ to arrive and invite people to dinner. *** Standing on the ‘beach of life’ and considering the wonderful universe may place humanity in the place of a Robinson Crusoe with amnesia on the island existing in a place that offers no evidence of intelligent design, or of intelligence anywhere. Perhaps humanity would not regard a footprint as evidence of intelligence, yet Robinson Crusoe might have regarded such as an indication of the presence of a being something like himself, with intelligence perhaps. Humanity, and Robinson Cruse too, would find multi-story buildings, giant domino games in the sky and so forth as better examples or indications of intelligent design (by someone) than indirect evidence that is of a more anthropological association obviously. Yet to rule out a search for intelligent design from science would be perhaps akin to Galileo ruling out telescope building, or Socrates thinking about the cosmos on the basis that they couldn’t possibly discover anything. *** Intelligent Design can be a scientific parameter or hypothesis and not even necessarily contradict evolution theory. Evolution theory is a theory for-itself perhaps with some gaps that try to explain the origin of life and its development on Earth. It is a theory for itself, yet it is not perhaps solely a scientific hypothesis. *** Intelligent Design parameters may be applied for observation and testing to any field of science I would think including evolution theory, yet as with evolution theory the mete-physical parameters would be very large and interdisciplinary. One would need evidence for an intelligent design of evolution on Earth, and I can think of no better evidence for that than the Biblical book of Genesis that orders the creation of life in a sequence not very dissimilar from that hypothesized by paleontologists and evolutionary biologists albeit much abbreviated. The age of the creation of life to the end of the flood given Genesis’ time value is about the same as that given by science. When one uses Peter’s figure that a day to God is as a thousand years life on Earth started 2.5 billion years ago approx. *** While Biblical association with evolution theory might offer the notion of proof of the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe as Genesis was written 3400 years before evolution theory that confirms it, I would not be so rash nor accept as purely scientific such a topical correlation of evidence. *** Evolution theory is an interesting theory, yet if one considers linguistic theory and how indo-European language origins have changed through the years it is obvious that evidence can be built up and theories reformed not just in language but also in biology, and of course in physics. On the way of science in learning about the Universe researching structures for intelligent design on a scientific basis could be a useful practice. *** Beyond the Genesis association with theoretical parameters I personally am not at all sure that there is any need for left-over intelligent design signs of the creation of the Universe. Perhaps some deistic or theistic believers require a physical means by which God can continue to change the universe, yet I think he is bigger than the need for any of that, in fact for God the Universe and it’s time be pass more quickly than cash in a gas station to foreign oil producers and lobbyists in the congress or administration even.
  • Joao Camilo
    March 22, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    "Evolution theory is an interesting theory, yet if one considers linguistic theory and how indo-European language origins have changed through the years it is obvious that evidence can be built up and theories reformed not just in language but also in biology, and of course in physics. On the way of science in learning about the Universe researching structures for intelligent design on a scientific basis could be a useful practice." That is more evidence that you go surffing in the next, write fancy but is empty. ID is not something new. It is actually older than Darwin's Natural Selection. Darwin himself considered the possibility. He in fact destroyed it and his first famous defensor, Richard Owen. Theories do change - but they do not change back and the premisses for an acceptable theory are still the same. God (the designer) is not falsible. Darwin theory keep changing - and still more and more evidences for the lack of the need of a designer. Occam's Razor cut God's head and we must still let it root in decay. And stop trying to imply the bible here, it just shows your creationist feathers...

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: