I understand what you're trying to say here, but you're so desperate that there not be any evidence for ID that you're blinding yourself. The first point, I can see how you can get around that by calling it a negative argument. The second and third however, both have positive aspects. Consider, if there hasn't been time for something to naturally develop, then it stands to reason that there is some force encouraging it. Also, considering the complexity of design -err development intellegence can be posited.
Again, I'm out of my realm here, but when you combine this with other aspects, such as the continuing reoccurance of complex life in the geological record, when it would have been wiped out over and over again, along with - I know you don't like to think of this as evidence - the complex engines that can be found on the cellular level (these devices are similar to macro devices that humans have devleoped as well as nano devices we hope to develop, a case begins to appear. I'm not saying that it's an open and shut case, but to say there's no evidence demonstrates a desperation that I think inappropriate.
I concede that there is a metaphysical/philosophical element to ID, but any affirmation of truth requires some set of metaphisical presuppositions. This cannot be removed from any sphere of study scientific or otherwise. At a minimum we must echo Descarte "cogito, ergo sum".
"I don't understand where you got that from. Just because we can't prove something doesn't mean we can't pick a "best" theory. That theory is chosen on the merits of its being able to stand up to scrutiny via testing. In other words, the more evidence, the better the theory. No theory is perfect, which is why they're constantly modified and replaced"
I'm sorry, I misunderstood your point. Glad we agree here.
Certainly there is evidence for ID, if one is willing to seriously entertain the possibility. I'm not the best proponant for this, as I haven't given it any serious study, but here are a few things that I've heard in discussions. The "youngness" of the earth has caused many to completely dismiss geo-natural causes for the origins of life (lookup Francis Crick - Nobel Prize winner for the discovery of DNA). Also, given our current understanding of natural selection/mutation, there hasn't been time for the development of life as we know it. Again, there's evidence in the fossil record of periods of great explosions of life, times when many new species formed in very short periods of time. This is all evidence for ID. It may be that you have other explanations than ID that you think are better. For instance transpermia, the idea that life originated on other planets and was transported to earth, has been proposed to overcome some of these problems (sounds like Battlestar Galactica might be on to something). But you cannot legitimately deny that it is evidence for ID, unless of course you have some metascientific (ie philosophical) reason for doing so.
"No, we do not currently have any evidence that our universe was created on purpose. "
Well, I'm glad we cleared that up! It's good to have omnicient people, such as yourself, on slashdot, who know all evidence that "we" currently have.
It seems to me that you've defined ID as a straw man here. Is it really the case that all there is to ID is the thought that some things are complex, so they must be designed? I think there's a lot more to it than that.
But, are you saying that no matter how much evidence there is, we shouldn't look at that evidence, because there's no way to prove the hypothesis? This isn't theoretical math, it's biological science. 100% certain proofs don't exist here. You look at the evidence for or against certain hypothesies and determine if there is significant support.
I see this as an absurd question. Isn't this what archeology is all about? How do we determine if an object is a rock or a fashioned tool. The question is clearly one of ID.
While the issue of ID with respect to biology is a different animal, it is clearly a scientific question. To answer that it is clear that all biological structures were designed by the creator God who is three persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), would be completely beyond any scientific sphere. But the question of ID or not is clearly within the proper realm of science.
I'm reminded of a movie (The Thirteenth Floor). This movie was not a contender for any Academy Awards, however the plot was excellent and it explored the concept of Artificial Intelligence. The primary characters had developed a computer simulation of the 1920's. The neat thing about this simulation is that the creators could enter in as one of the characters. Not, just as an observer or a computer roll play, but as an actual character within the simulation. However, the main character was faced with evidence that in fact his "real" world was a simulation as well. This was clearly evidence of a scientific nature and as it played out, he discovered that, in fact, his world was intelligently designed by programmers of another world. It seams that his life would have been easier just believing as he did that he was a "real" person. However, he chose to explore the question of intelligent design and find the truth.
It seems that the dogma of our day is naturalistic evolution. We will not consider evidence that seems to contradict this, nor will we allow it to be taught in our classrooms. In this, we emulate our predecessors who would not allow Galileo to promote the radical Copernican ideas regarding our solar system.
Interesting point. This does seem to show an inconsistency in the valuation of embryos.
Logically, however, it's quite irrelevant to the discussion of the actual nature of the embryo.
Of course, I was assuming that the reader would understand we were speaking of a distinct being with it's own genetic code - seperate from the mother, but thanks for giving me an opportunity to state the obvious.
A car is not a living being - an embryo is. The plans and means are in the egg and sperm. An embryo is not a means to build a human life. It is a human life. Note the cells dividing.
The only definition that doesn't slide and wriggle all over the place, is the classic scientific definition. A species is defined by its genetic makeup. If something is alive and is genetically a human, then it is a human.
Any other attempt to define humanity is a functional definition, and is completely open to interpretation.
Of course, that depends on what you mean by science and what you mean by religion. There are those who claim scientism as their religion and spout things that have less true scientific evidence than much of what is classically known as religion.
Take a look at the book Darwin on Trial if you are interested in learning more about the modern myths propogated by some "scientists". This is not specifically about Darwin, rather it's about some of the preposterous things that are claimed by neo-darwinists today.
Also, an objective study of western history will show that belief in an unchanging omnipotent, was the instigator of most scientific research throughout the renaissance and great awakening. Without such a foundation, people tend to worship volcano gods and mountains, rather than investigating creation, because they have no foundation to base their research. For instance, if there is no trancendant, why would one trust in logic? What makes logic so great? Could not it have evolved errant? On the other hand, those who believe in an omnipotent creator, begin to study his handywork in an effort to learn more about him. So, at least in some cases, Religion is the instigator of scientific research.
Unfortunately, researchers using funds from the California bond initiative won't be able to use this research. They are restricted to research on stem cells from cloned human embryos.
Which, so far, shows much less promise than adult stem cells.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand what you're trying to say here, but you're so desperate that there not be any evidence for ID that you're blinding yourself. The first point, I can see how you can get around that by calling it a negative argument. The second and third however, both have positive aspects. Consider, if there hasn't been time for something to naturally develop, then it stands to reason that there is some force encouraging it. Also, considering the complexity of design -err development intellegence can be posited.
Again, I'm out of my realm here, but when you combine this with other aspects, such as the continuing reoccurance of complex life in the geological record, when it would have been wiped out over and over again, along with - I know you don't like to think of this as evidence - the complex engines that can be found on the cellular level (these devices are similar to macro devices that humans have devleoped as well as nano devices we hope to develop, a case begins to appear. I'm not saying that it's an open and shut case, but to say there's no evidence demonstrates a desperation that I think inappropriate.
I concede that there is a metaphysical/philosophical element to ID, but any affirmation of truth requires some set of metaphisical presuppositions. This cannot be removed from any sphere of study scientific or otherwise. At a minimum we must echo Descarte "cogito, ergo sum".
"I don't understand where you got that from. Just because we can't prove something doesn't mean we can't pick a "best" theory. That theory is chosen on the merits of its being able to stand up to scrutiny via testing. In other words, the more evidence, the better the theory. No theory is perfect, which is why they're constantly modified and replaced"
I'm sorry, I misunderstood your point. Glad we agree here.
Certainly there is evidence for ID, if one is willing to seriously entertain the possibility. I'm not the best proponant for this, as I haven't given it any serious study, but here are a few things that I've heard in discussions. The "youngness" of the earth has caused many to completely dismiss geo-natural causes for the origins of life (lookup Francis Crick - Nobel Prize winner for the discovery of DNA). Also, given our current understanding of natural selection/mutation, there hasn't been time for the development of life as we know it. Again, there's evidence in the fossil record of periods of great explosions of life, times when many new species formed in very short periods of time. This is all evidence for ID. It may be that you have other explanations than ID that you think are better. For instance transpermia, the idea that life originated on other planets and was transported to earth, has been proposed to overcome some of these problems (sounds like Battlestar Galactica might be on to something). But you cannot legitimately deny that it is evidence for ID, unless of course you have some metascientific (ie philosophical) reason for doing so.
"No, we do not currently have any evidence that our universe was created on purpose. "
Well, I'm glad we cleared that up! It's good to have omnicient people, such as yourself, on slashdot, who know all evidence that "we" currently have.
It seems to me that you've defined ID as a straw man here. Is it really the case that all there is to ID is the thought that some things are complex, so they must be designed? I think there's a lot more to it than that.
But, are you saying that no matter how much evidence there is, we shouldn't look at that evidence, because there's no way to prove the hypothesis? This isn't theoretical math, it's biological science. 100% certain proofs don't exist here. You look at the evidence for or against certain hypothesies and determine if there is significant support.
I see this as an absurd question. Isn't this what archeology is all about? How do we determine if an object is a rock or a fashioned tool. The question is clearly one of ID.
While the issue of ID with respect to biology is a different animal, it is clearly a scientific question. To answer that it is clear that all biological structures were designed by the creator God who is three persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), would be completely beyond any scientific sphere. But the question of ID or not is clearly within the proper realm of science.
I'm reminded of a movie (The Thirteenth Floor). This movie was not a contender for any Academy Awards, however the plot was excellent and it explored the concept of Artificial Intelligence. The primary characters had developed a computer simulation of the 1920's. The neat thing about this simulation is that the creators could enter in as one of the characters. Not, just as an observer or a computer roll play, but as an actual character within the simulation. However, the main character was faced with evidence that in fact his "real" world was a simulation as well. This was clearly evidence of a scientific nature and as it played out, he discovered that, in fact, his world was intelligently designed by programmers of another world. It seams that his life would have been easier just believing as he did that he was a "real" person. However, he chose to explore the question of intelligent design and find the truth.
It seems that the dogma of our day is naturalistic evolution. We will not consider evidence that seems to contradict this, nor will we allow it to be taught in our classrooms. In this, we emulate our predecessors who would not allow Galileo to promote the radical Copernican ideas regarding our solar system.
Interesting point. This does seem to show an inconsistency in the valuation of embryos.
Logically, however, it's quite irrelevant to the discussion of the actual nature of the embryo.
Of course, I was assuming that the reader would understand we were speaking of a distinct being with it's own genetic code - seperate from the mother, but thanks for giving me an opportunity to state the obvious.
A car is not a living being - an embryo is. The plans and means are in the egg and sperm. An embryo is not a means to build a human life. It is a human life. Note the cells dividing.
The only definition that doesn't slide and wriggle all over the place, is the classic scientific definition. A species is defined by its genetic makeup. If something is alive and is genetically a human, then it is a human. Any other attempt to define humanity is a functional definition, and is completely open to interpretation.
Of course, that depends on what you mean by science and what you mean by religion. There are those who claim scientism as their religion and spout things that have less true scientific evidence than much of what is classically known as religion.
Take a look at the book Darwin on Trial if you are interested in learning more about the modern myths propogated by some "scientists". This is not specifically about Darwin, rather it's about some of the preposterous things that are claimed by neo-darwinists today.
Also, an objective study of western history will show that belief in an unchanging omnipotent, was the instigator of most scientific research throughout the renaissance and great awakening. Without such a foundation, people tend to worship volcano gods and mountains, rather than investigating creation, because they have no foundation to base their research. For instance, if there is no trancendant, why would one trust in logic? What makes logic so great? Could not it have evolved errant? On the other hand, those who believe in an omnipotent creator, begin to study his handywork in an effort to learn more about him. So, at least in some cases, Religion is the instigator of scientific research.
Unfortunately, researchers using funds from the California bond initiative won't be able to use this research. They are restricted to research on stem cells from cloned human embryos. Which, so far, shows much less promise than adult stem cells.
Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World is a book that goes into detail on this and other ethical issues that researchers and legislators are facing.