poliphilo

In what sense is Intelligent Design a 'philosophical' theory?

From:

I know that Intelligent Design is, as presently formulated, a trojan horse for Biblical Fundamentalism, but I'm equating it here with the argument- famously and respectably put forward by Archdeacon Paley- about the Divine Watchmaker.

From:

I don't agree that Paley's argument is 'philosophical' in a sense that distinguishes it from 'scientific' arguments. It seeks to argue to an explanation of observed phenomena, no less than does an argument to the acidity of HCl from its reactions. The difference is Paley's proferred explanatory argument is not very good*. Why that might be, what the criteria for inference to the best explanation might be, and whether that's what science gets up to anyway - now these are subjects for philosophical argument.

*Given what we know now. I'm not dissing Paley in his context.

From:

qatsi.livejournal.com

I like the concept, but I'm not sure how well it works. A theory (of any sort) is something that might be wrong, surely?

From:

Oh yes.

Any theory could be wrong.

Actually, I'm not sure we have anything but theories, do we? Some of our theories fit the evidence better than others, but is there anything we think we know of which we can be absolutely sure?

From:

qatsi.livejournal.com

I'm absolutely sure that any theory could be wrong :)

Euclid had his axioms - things which were self-evidently true, but even they started to be picked away by geometers(geometricians?) in the nineteenth century. Rationally, I think we can only place limits on certainty (a theory that is observed to be substantially correct can probably only be wrong in a certain limited way).

From:

Where do you place say, '2+2=4', in relation to your claim that we don't have anything but theories?

From:

I have always had a blind spot where maths is concerned, but- yes- you're right, I suppose 2+2=4 is going to be true in any conceivable universe.

From:

A theory (of any sort) is something that might be wrong, surely?

Sure, it could be. But scientifically, to achieve the status of "theory," an idea has to have huge amounts of evidence supporting it. You don't just get to be a theory because someone had a hunch.

Sure, evolution is "just" a theory. So is gravity.

Intelligent Design, however, has not achieved the level of theory yet, scientifically speaking.

From:

arielstarshadow.livejournal.com

Bear in mind that those who believe in Intelligent Design view it as scientifically as those who believe in Darwinism.

Honestly, in my mind, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I've never understood why it's so hard for people to not see that the two fit together perfectly.

From:

The Independent Designers are wrong then. For something to be science it has to be testable and
their theory isn't.

I agree about Science and Religion. There's no reason why one shouldn't be a Theist and a Darwinian- and lots of people are. I think Darwin himself may have been. What isn't compatible with Science is the sort of religion that says "my very old book is a better guide to the physical universe than your up-to-the-minute research".

From:

For something to be science it has to be testable and
their theory isn't.

I refuse to use the term "theory" in relation to Intelligent Design.

There are two meanings of the word theory. In casual lay terms, it usually means an idea or hunch. ("I have a theory that her husband is cheating on her.") But in scientific terms, a theory is an idea that has been tested repeatedly and stood up to a great deal of scrutiny.

The Intelligent Designers are trying to speak in scientific terms in order to give themselves credibility. If they want to play in the scientific arena, then they need to play by scientific rules. And scientifically speaking, ID is *not* in any way a theory.

From:

The problem is knowing what else to call ID. "A fancy"? "A whim"? "A notion"?

From:

Philosophy? Belief system? Idea?

From:

You will get into some very muddy water with theoretical physics if you claim that all 'science' has to be (directly?) testable.

From:

I'm out of my depth here. But presumably even the most far-fetched of theories in physics has to be backed-up with testable mathematics.

From:

Ah, but mathematics needn't be *empirically* testable need it?

My basic point here is that ID is, as its proponents claim, a scientific theory. It is, however, a crap one. And unless children are to be taught fringe theories about everything in science classes, it seems arbitrary to insist they should be taught this one.

From:

I'm inclined to think that "crap science" is a contradiction in terms.

But we're in basic agreement on the most important thing. ID- however you want to classify it- has no place in the science class.

From:

Bear in mind that those who believe in Intelligent Design view it as scientifically as those who believe in Darwinism.

They like to *claim* that it has as much scientific evidence behind it, but it doesn't. According to the standards of science--that an idea has to be testable, and then stand up to *repeated* testing--Intelligent Design simply falls flat.

But like you, I don't see why science and religion have to be mutually exclusive. The existence of evolution in no way negates the existence of God. Nor does evolution answer all of the questions that religion tries to answer.

Many scientists, including Darwin himself, are very religious. The only thing that evolution negates is a completely literal translation of the Bible.

From:

I hate the term "Darwinist." It implies (as the creationists are trying to do) that it's just a belief system. I'm not a "Darwinist." I'm a rational human being who has looked at the scientifice evidence and determined that it overwhelmingly supports evolution. Therefore, I will accept evolution until the evidence overwhelmingly convinces me otherwise.

Since the "evidence" put forth by creationists is not and never has been scientifically sound, I'm pretty sure I will be supporting evolution for the rest of my days.

From:

pickwick.livejournal.com

Totally agree with this. We don't call people who believe in gravity "Newtonists".

From:

But don't you think that Evolutionary theory is propounded a little like a religion? To question it is to invite contempt. I'm not a Biblical fundamentalist (I'm not any sort of religious believer) but I have a nagging feeling that Evolution isn't the whole story, that there's more to find out...

From:

Nobody denies there is 'more to find out'. Indeed, a hallmark of a good scientific theory is openness to future discovery.

But, to be honest, I think the heated propounding of evolution issues from (understandable) exasperation. You'd probably see something similar from physicists if a well-founded group started agitating against relativity.

I exempt the fool Dawkins from this empathy.

From:

Ah, Dawkins....

I'm thinking I should perhaps read his book. My feeling is he undermines his position by his stridency, but I've only read him in excerpts and seem him on the telly.

From:

I think that some people treat evolutionary theory like a religion, sure. Just like some Christians are bigoted rabid fundamentalists. But if you refer to all Christians as "fundies" then you're going to piss off the many Christians who don't fall into that category. And if you refer to everyone who accepts evolution as a "Darwinist," then you're implying that everyone who accepts evolution believes in it with religious fervor.

And I would say that only a very small minority of people who accept evolution treat it like a religion. The fact is, the vast majority of scientists (and people who accept evolution overall) also believe in God or some other higher power. Clearly they think, like you, that evolution isn't the whole story. But evolution is almost certainly a part of the story. I don't think most evolution scientists are contemptuous of those who ask, "But couldn't there still be a higher power?" I think that they are contemptuous of those who say that evolution never happened at all, and then present a bunch of completely bogus and unsupportable "evidence" as "proof" of their beliefs. They are contemptuous of people who try to present a set of religious beliefs as scientific fact in order to trick people into accepting them. And frankly, those kinds of people deserve contempt, IMO.

From:

I'm sure you're right.

The moral is don't read message boards. The intemperance and sneery condescension shown by the people (on both sides of the argument)who were posting on this one left me feeling jaundiced.

I don't feel contempt for Creationists. Sorry for them, perhaps. Also rather cross. But I know from experience what it feels like to be one of the "Saved"
and how hard it is escape from that culture and mindset.

From:

The moral is don't read message boards

I think, when it comes down to it, that this is the moral for just about everything.

From:

pickwick.livejournal.com

As someone else pointed out, they're using completely definitions of the word "theory". I suppose they're both trying to impose their own definition on the other, but the Creationists seem to be incapable of realising that a scientific "theory" is different, and that just because something says it's a theory that does not mean that there's no more evidence for it than for Creationism. Kind of the reverse, in fact.

I never understood the Watchmaker theory, really - it just seemed to me to move the questions back a step. ("So what created the creator?") Just another Turtles all the way down thing.

From: