Intelligent Design

[Nilloc James]

If intelligent design proponents wish to have intelligent design treated as the intellectual equivalent evolution, or any other science for that matter, they must demonstrate that it makes predictions that can be tested. It must explain the data.

It's central premise, god actively designed and created life on earth, must lead to outcomes in the real world we can check. Of course, this process also makes it falsifiable like any other theory. This is the denying the consequent argument and shown in more general terms below:

if h then p
not p
ergo, not h.

It is a valid argument and how we falsify theories - some theories, e.g. atomic theory or cell theory, have been tested in this manner so many times, and each time the prediction is true, that they are provisionally accepted.

Thus the questions for debate:

Does intelligent design make predictions about the natural world?

Can these predictions be tested (shown true or false) through observation or experiment?

If a theory can't produce predictions is it scientific?

Caveat: This topic was not intended to involve the role of science in the education system (although that would make an interesting discussion), so if we could avoid that issue in a discussion of the merits of intelligent design that would be grand.
This is not intended to be thread on what should be

[Baz]

Just a thought .... Didn't it all start thousands of years ago with the simplest explanation for everything we didnt now being "God did it"?

[Crazee]

I don't believe in god per se, but I do think the reason for bad things in the world is so that we can learn to fix our own problems. We must cleanse our own materializations before moving onto a higher level of comprehension.

I think that attributes too much agency to god/the universe. I think it is simpler, and explains as much if not more, to say "the universe does not have plans for humanity". Occam's razor and the like.

On the one hand you can say "The universe doesn't care what we do"
On the other hand I can say "The universe does care what we do"

I think that accepting the second phrase will lead to a solution based mindset for humanity, whereas the first one may perpetuate our spiral into certain self-demise. For that reason alone, I'm willing to bet my karma on the second phrase being a more accurate way of describing reality.

Please understand that I don't think it is necessary to regard the universe as a living being in order for positive change to occur, but it is a very useful model for doing so.

[Nilloc James]

I think that accepting the second phrase will lead to a solution based mindset for humanity, whereas the first one may perpetuate our spiral into certain self-demise. For that reason alone, I'm willing to bet my karma on the second phrase being a more accurate way of describing reality.

This is an argument from consequence. It is not an effective way to ascertain knowledge about reality.

Just a thought .... Didn't it all start thousands of years ago with the simplest explanation for everything we didnt now being "God did it"? Whistle

I have to objections to this claim. First that "god did it" does not actually explain anything we see around us - naturalistic explanations do. Second, is that really simpler? God did it vs. It happened? The latter does not have to pigeon-hole in a supernatural, it has fewer components and is a simpler explanation.

[Crazee]

I think that accepting the second phrase will lead to a solution based mindset for humanity, whereas the first one may perpetuate our spiral into certain self-demise. For that reason alone, I'm willing to bet my karma on the second phrase being a more accurate way of describing reality.

This is an argument from consequence. It is not an effective way to ascertain knowledge about reality.

Everything is an argument from consequences. We all form our arguments with the consequences of being wrong sharply in mind. There is no objective system of deduction, this is evidenced by the subjective nature of evidence.

I believe this (as you've quoted) is an effective way to glean information. We observe what sort of thought patterns bring about positive results, and emulate them.

I think a highly interconnected (intelligent?) universe is plausible as per my own methods of reasoning. One concept that I think supports this notion would be Quantum Non-locality; the theory that everything effects everything, all the time. Supposedly it has been experimentally verified, but don't take my word for it.

is that really simpler? God did it vs. It happened? The latter does not have to pigeon-hole in a supernatural, it has fewer components and is a simpler explanation.

Those two statements (God did it vs. It happened) are functionally exactly the same. Both attribute the way things are to something that we do not comprehend; the appeal to the unknown.

[Divine Insight]

I didn't read the whole thread, but here are my responses to the question asked in the OP:

Does intelligent design make predictions about the natural world?

For me personally it does. It predicts that the natural world should be intelligently designed.

Pretty straight-forward prediction I think.

Can these predictions be tested (shown true or false) through observation or experiment?

Yes.

IMHO, they can be tested via observations that are accessible to everyone.

Are animals designed to eat each other?

Yes.

Is designing animals to eat each other intelligent?

I can't speak for others since the very concept of "intelligence" is potentially subjective and subject to the intelligence of the person making the call. But for me, the answer is clearly no. Designing animals to eat each other is not an intelligent thing to do.

Thus the prediction of the theory that things should be intelligently designed fails, and the theory is necessarily wrong. A single contradicting example is sufficient to renounce the theory.

For those who prefer more evidence, just consider the existence of disease and apply the same reasoning. Designing diseases to attack the creation would again be far from intelligent, IMHO.

I could point out many other examples, but as I've said, one counter-example is really all that is required to refute a theory, and I've already given two.

If a theory can't produce predictions is it scientific?

Supposedly not.

But in the case of "Intelligent Design", as a theory, it fails. It's not a matter of not being able to make predictions. It actually does make the prediction that things should be intelligently designed and fails miserably in that prediction. Thus it can be scientifically known to be an incorrect and clearly false theory.

Hope this helps.

[Goat]

I didn't read the whole thread, but here are my responses to the question asked in the OP:

Does intelligent design make predictions about the natural world?

For me personally it does. It predicts that the natural world should be intelligently designed.

Really?? How does it do that?? How can you test that to distinguish between 'intelligently designed', and 'variation followed by natural selection'. Would you say that if you found structures that were NOT optimally designed, but 'work good enough' with lots of jury rigging it would be against intelligent design?

Pretty straight-forward prediction I think.

Can these predictions be tested (shown true or false) through observation or experiment?

Yes.

IMHO, they can be tested via observations that are accessible to everyone.

Like?? Can you give examples? What PREDICTIONS that we have not observed yet do you make? Can you give specific examples?

Generalities don't cut it. Give specifics.

[Divine Insight]

I didn't read the whole thread, but here are my responses to the question asked in the OP:

Does intelligent design make predictions about the natural world?

For me personally it does. It predicts that the natural world should be intelligently designed.

Really?? How does it do that?? How can you test that to distinguish between 'intelligently designed', and 'variation followed by natural selection'. Would you say that if you found structures that were NOT optimally designed, but 'work good enough' with lots of jury rigging it would be against intelligent design?

You're thinking too much like an engineer. You don't even need to go to that level.

"Intelligent Design" demands, by it's very assertion, that the world should be intelligently designed. Period.

Forget about the engineering details, you don't even need to begin to consider those.

All you need to do is look around you and see that clearly there are many animals that are "designed" to eat other animals. They are simply equipped with fangs, claws, and so-forth that wouldn't even remotely be needed for a purely vegetarian lifestyle.

Therefore those animals were "designed" to eat other animals.

All you need to do now is ask yourself the question, "Is it intelligent to design life to eat other life that you've already designed"?

Like I say, the answer to that question could be considered subjective. For me personally, I say no, that's not an intelligent thing for a designer to do.

If you feel otherwise then clearly we'll have dramatically different views on this topic. But for me personally the simple observation that animals are clearly "designed" to eat other animals tells me that the design couldn't have been thought out by an "intelligent" designer. And therefore the idea that it evolved by natural processes with nothing more than survival as the driving factor makes far more sense.

I simply wouldn't expect an "intelligent" designer to design animals to eat each other. Especially not a "benevolent intelligent designer".

Now if you're allowing for a sick demented, and evil "intelligent designer" my objections would clearly not apply. But at that point I would question whether being sick demented and evil truly represents "intelligence". It may represent sentience, but I would argue that it still wouldn't represent intelligence.

So at that point perhaps we could discuss the possibility of "Sentient Design" recognizing that sentient designer isn't very intelligent.

Pretty straight-forward prediction I think.

Can these predictions be tested (shown true or false) through observation or experiment?

Yes.

IMHO, they can be tested via observations that are accessible to everyone.

Like?? Can you give examples? What PREDICTIONS that we have not observed yet do you make? Can you give specific examples?

Generalities don't cut it. Give specifics.

The observation that animals are "designed" to eat each other is a specific observation that can easily be made scientific. No generalities required.

As I had already stated in my previous post, the same type of observations can be made concerning diseases.

Why should an "intelligent designer" design bacteria and viruses to attack and destroy other other lifeforms that it had just designed?

Where is there any intelligence in that?

Like I say, you could say that this is subjective, but for me it's sufficient.

The idea of an "Intelligent Designer" fails miserably via observations we can easily make.

Now if we would like to consider a theory called "Sick Demented Evil Sentient Design", my observations would no longer apply.

But as long as the theory is going to be called "Intelligent Design" I think I've already given sufficient reasons to dismiss it as being clearly false.

[Crazee]

All you need to do is look around you and see that clearly there are many animals that are "designed" to eat other animals. They are simply equipped with fangs, claws, and so-forth that wouldn't even remotely be needed for a purely vegetarian lifestyle.

Therefore those animals were "designed" to eat other animals.

All you need to do now is ask yourself the question, "Is it intelligent to design life to eat other life that you've already designed"?

Like I say, the answer to that question could be considered subjective. For me personally, I say no, that's not an intelligent thing for a designer to do.

Okay, I see where you're coming from. It doesn't seem intelligent to have animals that are intent on causing each other physical harm in order to survive.

But, the way evolution works is that creatures evolve to occupy a niche. This is as simple as finding out where there is excess energy being spent, and to have it be used. Predators are very important to the food chain because they prevent other creatures from multiplying out of control and thusly exhausting the niche that they occupy.

If those animals that aren't being preyed on were to exhaust their own niche, then those animals would multiply exponentially for a short period of time, and then either go extinct or suffer a major population drop because the resources that they used to survive on have been over-depleted.

If there were no predators, most all animals would die of diseases. Is it more benevolent for an aging creature to be overcome by a disease then for it to be hunted in a flurry of adrenaline?

[Goat]

Deleted

[Divine Insight]

If there were no predators, most all animals would die of diseases. Is it more benevolent for an aging creature to be overcome by a disease then for it to be hunted in a flurry of adrenaline?

Interesting. Well, don't forget the deterioration from old age, and disease would also be attribute to the "Intelligent Designer".

So you're basically saying that the "Intelligent Designer" was busy designing ways to help avoid the horrible outcome of his "Intelligent Design"?

He thought it might be more benevolent to just have people eaten by animals than to let them die by his other "Intelligently Designed" methods of death?

Your suggestion that such a sudden death would be more "benevolent" seems to also support euthanasia for aging and ailing people as being more "benevolent" as well.

I actually agree on the matter of euthanasia. I too see euthanasia as being a benevolent choice over dying naturally from a horrible and painful disease, or old age deterioration.

But doesn't that also then call into question the "intelligence" of designing life to become decrepit in old age in the first place?

This appears to me to be just yet more observational evidence that the design of life is not so "intelligent".