Non-theistic ID

Non-theistic ID (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

atheistinpeace -> Non-theistic ID (6/22/2008 4:33:06 PM)
First, apologies if this topic has come up before and been done to death. To some extent, the camp on ID v. evolution is split between atheist evolutionists and theistic IDers/creationists (I appreciate that that's a fairly crude segmentation, though my guess is that those two groups would account for well over half the people with a view on the matter). Additionally, there is a very notable school of thought that advocates theistic evolution - and which has some big names behind it (Collins, Miller, etc). But the other possible hybrid position - non-theistic ID, or deistic ID - seems undersupported, especially considering how 'easy' it is to get there. All it would take is for an observer to - conclude that design is present in the universe (regardless of whether the observation concerned biology, physics, cosmology, etc) - and stop there; or then - to consult various holy books and either 1. conclude that they are all unconvincing, because the evidence he has seen contradicts them; or 2. realise that at least all but one must be wrong, and therefore treat any claim to holiness with suspicion, and rule them all out as reliable accounts of the designer's actions and motives. So why is the position of deistic ID not more prominent? My own theory is that opposition to evolution is in most cases derived from religious belief; therefore, the conclusion that there is design in the universe usually follows the assumption that there is a God with specific intentions, etc. Very interested what others make of all of the above. Before I end - I don't want this thread to be about evolution v ID, or about why a particularl holy book is better than the others, or about my own theory two paragraphs above; I'd simply like to hear everyone's take on why deistic ID isn't as popular as you might expect it to be. AiP

gluadys -> RE: Non-theistic ID (6/22/2008 5:02:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: atheistinpeace First, apologies if this topic has come up before and been done to death. To some extent, the camp on ID v. evolution is split between atheist evolutionists and theistic IDers/creationists (I appreciate that that's a fairly crude segmentation, though my guess is that those two groups would account for well over half the people with a view on the matter). Additionally, there is a very notable school of thought that advocates theistic evolution - and which has some big names behind it (Collins, Miller, etc). But the other possible hybrid position - non-theistic ID, or deistic ID - seems undersupported, especially considering how 'easy' it is to get there. All it would take is for an observer to - conclude that design is present in the universe (regardless of whether the observation concerned biology, physics, cosmology, etc) - and stop there; or then - to consult various holy books and either 1. conclude that they are all unconvincing, because the evidence he has seen contradicts them; or 2. realise that at least all but one must be wrong, and therefore treat any claim to holiness with suspicion, and rule them all out as reliable accounts of the designer's actions and motives. So why is the position of deistic ID not more prominent? My own theory is that opposition to evolution is in most cases derived from religious belief; therefore, the conclusion that there is design in the universe usually follows the assumption that there is a God with specific intentions, etc. Very interested what others make of all of the above. Before I end - I don't want this thread to be about evolution v ID, or about why a particularl holy book is better than the others, or about my own theory two paragraphs above; I'd simply like to hear everyone's take on why deistic ID isn't as popular as you might expect it to be. AiP I don't know that I have an answer to your question, but it is worth noting that deism came to the fore as a religious option with the Enlightenment and the rise of science. To the extent the cosmos was seen as a mechanism rather than an organic whole, it seemed a deity was only necessary to design it and set it in motion. A similar question can be posed in regard to evolution. Why do we have fairly strong support for theistic evolution, but hear virtually nothing of deistic evolution? Part of the problem may lie with deism's historic connection with a mechanical world view. Technology had a very good rep in the 18th and 19th centuries and was linked in popular imagination with an impending utopia of freedom from labour and scarcity. Today we are much more sceptical of technological fixes and more aware of the costs of technology. The machine is at least as much a threat as a promise. Maybe that rubs off on deism too. Still, the possibility of a deistic ID is tantalizing. Proponents of ID seem to be fascinated by machines and especially by biology as a grand mechanism of smoothly functioning biological machines. Philosophically, deism and ID would seem to be a natural fit.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Non-theistic ID (6/22/2008 6:07:18 PM)
quote: I'd simply like to hear everyone's take on why deistic ID isn't as popular as you might expect it to be. to which gluadys cogently added: quote: Why do we have fairly strong support for theistic evolution, but hear virtually nothing of deistic evolution? I think the reason both are rare is that deism itself is rare today. There's no difference between the evolution part of deistic evolution, theistic evolution, atheistic evolution or just plain old evolution. The only reason to add the superfluous modifier is to describe one's own personal position on a non-scientific issue, and there are darn few deists around to label themselves that way. The same, I imagine, is true for ID.

SamSpick -> RE: Non-theistic ID (6/25/2008 4:50:15 PM)
quote: non-theistic ID Is that is to say a belief in intelligent design without an accompanying belief in a creating entity?

thorkraki -> RE: Non-theistic ID (6/25/2008 5:10:07 PM)
In regard to the original question, I don't know why non-theistic or deistic ID isn't more popular. There was a time when it was. A Deist argument for ID is presented in the 18th century in David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion." In this work, Hume forwards the idea that, even if the universe had a designer, because of the flaws in the universe (aging, death, disease, etc.), the designer might have been incompetent, or immature, or senile, or mentally deficient. Also, just because something created the universe, it does not necessarily imply that the designer is moral, or immortal, or omnipotent. This is an interesting work, in the form of a dialogue between three main characters. One argues that human reason alone proves the existence of God, one is an atheist, and the third is a believer whose belief is based on faith in God's grace. The interesting thing is, the believer and the atheist gang up on the proponent of ID! I am not advocating these positions (I am a Christian!), I am just mentioning this work as relevant to this discussion, and historically interesting that a best-selling work of the 18th century asked these same questions. Thor

SamSpick -> RE: Non-theistic ID (6/25/2008 5:19:40 PM)
quote: In this work, Hume forwards the idea that, even if the universe had a designer, because of the flaws in the universe (aging, death, disease, etc.), Doesn't this assume that we know the designer's objectives though? Even though we might consider those things bad, they might still be in accordance with the designer's objectives and thus not flaws at all.

thorkraki -> RE: Non-theistic ID (6/25/2008 5:26:26 PM)
Hume addresses that. He doesn't say that these are necessarily flaws, only that human reason cannot prove one way or another if they are or not, leaving open the possibility that they are defects caused by a defective designer. The work ends, basically, by saying that human reason alone is not enough to prove the existence of a designer who is immortal, omniscient, and omnipotent. For that, faith is required. Hume's journals, which he did not permit to be published while he was alive, pretty much reveal that he was himself a closet atheist (Britain did not permit atheists, unitarians, catholics, or Jews to hold public office in the 18th century, which Hume did periodically throughout his adult life). Hume also went beyond denying the existence of the soul; he denied the existence of a core personality or self. Thor

SamSpick -> RE: Non-theistic ID (6/25/2008 5:41:42 PM)
Oh ok, thanks. Hume then leaves us with a choice of two rather bleak conclusions: 1) The universe is flawed and there's no point complaining because the creator is a helpless retard or; 2) The universe is perfect and there's still no point complaining because your suffering and eventual demise is an integral aspect the design. Personally, I prefer belief 2 which I suppose is the once popular deism you speak of? Was it popular amongst the general population or just amongst the educated elite?

thorkraki -> RE: Non-theistic ID (6/25/2008 5:47:19 PM)
Deism was generally popular among the educated in 18th century Britain, France, Scandinavia, and America. Jefferson was an ID Deist, of what is sometimes called the "clockmaker" school: God created the universe like a big, wind-up clock, and then sat back to watch it run, without interfering in its operation. This goes along with the very mechanical, Newtonian view of physical reality held by educated people of the time (although not by Newton himself). Of course, this largely came to an end with Einstein, relativity theory, quantum mechanics, etc. which are non-Newtonian. The majority belief of the "masses," if you will, was Protestant of various types in Britain, America, and Scandinavia, or Catholic in France. Thor

SamSpick -> RE: Non-theistic ID (6/25/2008 5:57:11 PM)
quote: I don't know why non-theistic or deistic ID isn't more popular. There was a time when it was. Then, to offer a possible answer to your question: deistic ID may have become less popular for two reasons: 1) there were relatively few people who knew of it to pass it on and 2) it has nothing to offer in terms of hope and reward and so enthusiasm for it quickly dwindled to nothing- particularly so as mainstream Christianity offers much hope. Pessimists are quickly forgotten.

thorkraki -> RE: Non-theistic ID (6/25/2008 6:01:15 PM)
You may be right. It certainly didn't necessarily offer any specific afterlife, or one at all, for that matter. Of course, many of the people who followed it were not really concerned about the afterlife! Of course, the comfort that we of faith take in our faith is exactly the thing that Marx and Engels found most disturbing!

hellohellohi -> RE: Non-theistic ID (7/2/2008 1:34:03 PM)
Well, deistic ID has been covered (yes, sounds the same as deistic evolution or a personal belief attached to scientific contentions). What about non-theistic ID? Why can't we claim, if we find evidence for intelligent design of our world, that is was constructed by aliens? If you believe these aliens would then have to be uncaused-causes then, fine -- you have multiple gods and a start to a religion. I am just wondering how ID differentiates between one designer and multiple designers, besides perhaps the old stand-by slogan "parsimony"? Seems like a can of worms to me, that's all.

SamSpick -> RE: Non-theistic ID (7/6/2008 2:59:48 PM)
quote: What about non-theistic ID? Why can't we claim, if we find evidence for intelligent design of our world, that is was constructed by aliens? If you believe these aliens would then have to be uncaused-causes then, fine -- you have multiple gods and a start to a religion. Wouldn't most people refer to that as polytheism?

GHitch -> RE: Non-theistic ID (7/6/2008 3:17:57 PM)
quote: So why is the position of deistic ID not more prominent? My own theory is that opposition to evolution is in most cases derived from religious belief; therefore, the conclusion that there is design in the universe usually follows the assumption that there is a God with specific intentions, etc. I think you've got it backwards. The design inference is natural and intuitive. Belief in a designing deity results from it, not the other way around. Mankind did not start from deity to design but from design to deity. And no, opposition to evolution (Darwinism) is not merely a result of religious beliefs (although it clearly is in many cases) but rather of logic and evidence. Take David Berlinski (The Devil's Delusion) for example - an agnostic who does not believe in neo-Darwinian theory at all and puts Dawkins and cie to shame. Tons of scientists come to oppose neo-Darwinism based on evidence and logic - science - not religious beliefs. Your mistake is a very common misconception promoted by fanatical Darwinists like Dawkins or PZ Meyers etc. for propaganda purposes.

gluadys -> RE: Non-theistic ID (7/6/2008 4:05:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GHitch Tons of scientists come to oppose neo-Darwinism based on evidence and logic - science Well, I wish they would make clear what their evidence and logic is. I have been very unimpressed by ID so far. I am not encouraged to pursue it further unless there is some fresh material.

GHitch -> RE: Non-theistic ID (7/6/2008 4:41:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: GHitch Tons of scientists come to oppose neo-Darwinism based on evidence and logic - science Well, I wish they would make clear what their evidence and logic is. I have been very unimpressed by ID so far. I am not encouraged to pursue it further unless there is some fresh material. They (say Dembski, Wells, Berlinski, Behe, Flew, Sandford etc.) have made it abundantly clear. Whether you are willing and able to see that clarity is the real question. What can be clearer than saying that coded information systems such as DNA do not and cannot be produced without intelligence? What is clearer than saying that what we see as design intuitively is real design rather than "illusion of design" or designoids (Dawkins etc.) What is clearer than seeing that the inter-dependent complexity in inter-active bio factories cannot be produced by random mutations = ns? I'm rather amazed at how Darwinists are able to be impressed by the mountains of unlimited speculation required for NDT (neo Darwinian theory) to work yet not understand something so simple and mathematical as the design inference! There are about 247 known nano machines in yeast DNA alone. Multiple machines working in co-operation do not and cannot arise through random processes or without coordinating intelligence. No more than Honda's auto factories could arise by natural occurrences alone. Simple.

atheistinpeace -> RE: Non-theistic ID (7/6/2008 5:30:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GHitch I'm rather amazed at how Darwinists are able to be impressed by the mountains of unlimited speculation required for NDT (neo Darwinian theory) to work yet not understand something so simple and mathematical as the design inference! Even if evolutionary theory has gaps, it has far fewer (or at least less significant) gaps than ID. The design inference isn't at all simple, as the proponent has to explain how the designer arose. AiP

gluadys -> RE: Non-theistic ID (7/6/2008 8:49:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GHitch What can be clearer than saying that coded information systems such as DNA do not and cannot be produced without intelligence? Demonstrating that this is more than an assertion of faith. quote: What is clearer than seeing that the inter-dependent complexity in inter-active bio factories cannot be produced by random mutations = ns? Ditto. To me these come across as arguments from incredulity. IDers can't believe that these things can be produced naturally through incremental steps. So they assert that they didn't. But where is the evidence? Where is the logic? In fact, I would settle for the logic, even without evidence.

hellohellohi -> RE: Non-theistic ID (7/7/2008 8:23:26 AM)
quote: quote: What is clearer than seeing that the inter-dependent complexity in inter-active bio factories cannot be produced by random mutations = ns? Hello, A person who can look a system and immediately tell with certainty what its origins are apparently is not in need of investigating things, say, on a reductionist level. However, if they are not motivated toward investigation at all (but rather publishing of obvious answers) then they need not take up the name "scientist," but rather "dissemenator of the obvious." That is, ID is not science. [;)]

GHitch -> RE: Non-theistic ID (7/7/2008 11:57:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: atheistinpeace Even if evolutionary theory has gaps, it has far fewer (or at least less significant) gaps than ID. The design inference isn't at all simple, as the proponent has to explain how the designer arose. AiP What gaps are you talking about? Darwinism has more gaps than solid ground so your statement is quite amazing. Also there is no need to explain how the designer arose at all. Both the design and designer are inferred logically - how the designer arose is entirely irrelevant.

GHitch -> RE: Non-theistic ID (7/7/2008 12:14:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: GHitch What can be clearer than saying that coded information systems such as DNA do not and cannot be produced without intelligence? Demonstrating that this is more than an assertion of faith. quote: What is clearer than seeing that the inter-dependent complexity in inter-active bio factories cannot be produced by random mutations = ns? Ditto. To me these come across as arguments from incredulity. IDers can't believe that these things can be produced naturally through incremental steps. So they assert that they didn't. But where is the evidence? Where is the logic? In fact, I would settle for the logic, even without evidence. Nothing is more certain than that information systems do not and cannot arise without intelligence. Faith? "Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen" - A. Lunn Please explain to us, through precise random mutations and ns steps, how symbolic code with syntax, semantics, error detection, cut, copy, paste, translation etc. can be produced without intelligence. The very word 'code' implies intelligence. Information itself is metaphysical. So of course you can't. No one ever has and the nature of coded info itself refutes the possibility. This isn't hard. The logic is very simple and the evidence is universally understood since no one can ever demonstrate the creation of complex coded information systems (CCIS) without intelligent designers. Darwinists perpetually assert that CCIS can arise without designers but never have and never can demonstrate it at all.

GHitch -> RE: Non-theistic ID (7/7/2008 12:29:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi quote: quote: What is clearer than seeing that the inter-dependent complexity in inter-active bio factories cannot be produced by random mutations = ns? Hello, A person who can look a system and immediately tell with certainty what its origins are apparently is not in need of investigating things, say, on a reductionist level. However, if they are not motivated toward investigation at all (but rather publishing of obvious answers) then they need not take up the name "scientist," but rather "dissemenator of the obvious." That is, ID is not science. [;)] Wrong. Forensic anthropologists would know that your over simplified summary does not hold water. Investigation is required before anything such thing as design detection can take place although much design is intuitively obvious. The words on your screen ? You know they are designed. You know the symbols and their associations to concepts. You know the words are not generated by a random process. How? Because you have experience that tells you to recognize symbolic language in patterned communications of information. If ID is not science, then all domains of forensics are not science. Of course Darwinism is not science if you consider that it is something around 90% speculation based on extrapolation from micro-evolution + 10% correct. You walk through a desert, you come across piles of stone. Are they intelligently designed or the natural outcome of ground movements + erosion + whatever? If the sones are organized into discernable patterns and sizes that indicate useage and thus purpose you intuitively know you're looking at say, a building of some kind, a statue or whatever. Then the investigations into designers, dating, materials, methods of construction etc. begin. They don't stop. Your view of ID is a borrowed one - from Darwinists who neither like it nor understand it at all - and it is false.

Embedded -> RE: Non-theistic ID (7/7/2008 12:33:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GHitch Nothing is more certain than that information systems do not and cannot arise without intelligence. Faith? "Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen" - A. Lunn Please explain to us, through precise random mutations and ns steps, how symbolic code with syntax, semantics, error detection, cut, copy, paste, translation etc. can be produced without intelligence. The very word 'code' implies intelligence. Information itself is metaphysical. So of course you can't. No one ever has and the nature of coded info itself refutes the possibility. This isn't hard. The logic is very simple and the evidence is universally understood since no one can ever demonstrate the creation of complex coded information systems (CCIS) without intelligent designers. Darwinists perpetually assert that CCIS can arise without designers but never have and never can demonstrate it at all. This is interesting. Can you define a unit of complexity? Is it a "complexon"? What does it look like? Can you describe a system an artificial (or any) system that has some minimal complexity? That is to say, if one single "complexon" were to be removed or changed the system would no longer be complex? Is the sum of "complexons" greater than the complexity of its parts? The reason I ask is this: I hear quite a bit about complexity and CCIS and whatnot but I have never heard a formal concrete definition of what they are and how to measure them. Do you know? If something is complex then surely there is some point, by sucessive removal of parts, that it becomes non-complex, no?

atheistinpeace -> RE: Non-theistic ID (7/7/2008 1:01:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GHitch Also there is no need to explain how the designer arose at all. Both the design and designer are inferred logically - how the designer arose is entirely irrelevant. It's very relevant! What we're trying to do here is explain complexity. That's what the theory of evolution by natural selection succeeds at. You'd disagree with that, because of what you consider to be gaps, but that doesn't excuse you from explaining how the necessary complexity of the designer arose. The caption to this cartoon is basically what I'm saying to you: http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/images/miracle3.gif AiP

hellohellohi -> RE: Non-theistic ID (7/7/2008 1:36:25 PM)
GHitch, okay, I'll grant that the idea that systems have a designer requires observation. Following this initial investigation, then, what further questions and investigations can be posed? Perhaps you will not believe me when I say I have probably more respect for ID than it deserves.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI