Intelligent Design and the Big Bang

[micatala]

Partially in response to President Bush's recent comment that Intelligent Design should be taught along with evolution, the PBS News Hour had Michael Behe on along with another guest (I apologize for not remembering his name; he is a physicist).

During the interview, Behe noted that when the Big Bang was first proposed and taken seriously because of the Hubble Red Shift, it was opposed by some physicist on philosophical grounds, since it implied a beginning of time for the universe. He noted that it is now an accepted theory because of the volume of data that has been found to support the theory. He claimed that ID also has data to support it, and all he is proposing is that students learn about this data and the continuing search for this data that is ongoing. The implication is that scientists today are opposing ID on philosophical grounds, just as they at first opposed the Big Bang.

I will confess I am paraphrasing from memory from a few days ago, but I think I am accurately portraying Behe's comments.

So, the question is, is Behe's analogy between the Big Bang and ID a good one? Why or why not?

[juliod]

So, the question is, is Behe's analogy between the Big Bang and ID a good one? Why or why not?

Nope. It's not because he's lying about there being evidence for ID. There's not even a theory to ID. ID is just traditional creationism with the word "god" removed. It's only a political concept, not a scientific (or even theological) one.

DanZ

[Alien]

I think ID can be called a "theory". Just because it gives an inductive explanation about a phenomenon.

The point is that it is simply NOT a scientific theory, because it does not fulfill the attribute for a theory to be scientific.

If we go a little more into details, the arguments on which ID theory is based are less than scientific: they are undefined and undefineable. If you call a design "intelligent", then you imply that there is design that is "unintelligent", or less intelligent. If you give an attribute to an action or an object, then you should be prepared to quantify that attribute. And you cannot say this attribute is "infinite", because no attribute can be infinite by definition. You can always find or define a higher or lower level for any attribute.

Unless, of course, you define in God all infinite attributes. But again, this implies logical contradictions.

ID is part of Faith, and not Science.

[QED]

Partially in response to President Bush's recent comment that Intelligent Design should be taught along with evolution, the PBS News Hour had Michael Behe on along with another guest (I apologize for not remembering his name; he is a physicist).

That's just awful. I know I shouldn't worry about this sort of thing, but I can't help it. I'm taken aback by the gloom this news has filled me with. But I'll proudly predict that this sort of nonsense would never surface in British politics. Now how's that for putting my neck on the line!

So, the question is, is Behe's analogy between the Big Bang and ID a good one? Why or why not?

The philosophical objection to the BB was not "oh no, it can't be because it makes a case for the existence of god" and neither is the objection to ID. So what point is he trying to make? The analogy proves nothing. All he does is draw attention to the consequences of the scientific method at work.

[juliod]

they are undefined and undefineable. If you call a design "intelligent", then you imply that there is design that is "unintelligent", or less intelligent.

You are quite right in this. If there was a theory called ID, it would tell us things like the difference between intelligent and non-intlligent design. Or the distinction between two or more known or possible designers. They would show us various objects and be able to show that some were designed and some were not.

Since nothing like that is even attempted, I say that ID is not a theory at all. It explains nothing, and indeed has nothing to explain.

If ID were a theory it would be part of theology. Note: real theologians do not study ID. There is a healthy field of academic theological journals and publications. Yet ID is limited to the conservative christian anti-science crowd.

Move along... there's nothing to see here...

DanZ

[Cathar1950]

I remember watching john ankerberg on tv. He was claiming the victory of id. His statement was something to the effect; well it shows the universe was created and only the biblew says it was created. Therfore the bible is correct and Jesus is Lord?
It is just the old watchmaker teleological argument and should be treated as such in the right class. Intorduction to Philosophy 101. Maybe Philosophy of religion or basic Theology.
History of ideas? Hang-up from wayback? How the west was never one or won.