What is the first hypothesis for Intelligent Design?

I want to begin some Scientific research into the very first hypothesis and if it pans out to check some of the other hypothesis's out. I expect they have all been highly reviewed and accepted so that it has been declared a formal Scientific Theory.. Before I accept the Theory I must first research the first hypothesis to see if I concur with the other Scientists. It is to be taught in a Science class so scientific procedures should be evident. Where do I find this information? :shrug:

Step 2: Fire up "gullibility" section in brain.

etc.

People argue that life is so complex it couldn't have happened by chance, that it had to have a maker, much like a watch has to have a maker.

But then I ask;

Who made the watchmaker?

individual physical entity that mirrors our own limited experience of self and existence.

If we instead posit that Intelligence is implicit to Nature and that it is expressed in the Natural World but not limited by it, we no longer need a Watchmaker personage.

Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory. Religion isn't a scientific theory and can't be proven.

ID has no other hypothesis, and it predicts nothing.

...IIRC ID basicly argues that life is to complex to have arisen through abiogenseis, mutation and natural selection. The two main "scientific" arguments is mathematical improbability and irreducible complexity - both soundly discreditied in the Dover trials.

Human beings are just too perfect to have evolved, therefore there must be a God who designed and created us.



In other words, "I don't understand how everything works so there must be a God".




edit: I just noticed, there's a *really* long wikipedia page on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

but since I don't buy into that crap I could be wrong.


Maybe try to watch the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" it sucks but so does the theory

we could have *easily* gotten the religious right to fight tooth and nail against "Intelligent design" and it ever being presented in a school. It would be so easy.

Here's the thing. "ID" states that some un-named creator must have designed the universe. Must have set the world in to motion. ID doesn't say that it was the judeo-christian God doing it in 7 days in the order of genesis. But *SOME* higher power. How could the government DARE teach our children that there might be higher powers other than the GOD of the bible?? DO you really want some college educated high falutin union member teacher telling you children that the GOD that created the design of the entire universe might have been some many armed brown Hindu GOD? Or some hateful MUSLIM GOD COULD HAVE GREATED THE UNIVERSE?? ID IS THE WORK OF THE DEVIL to allow the government to tell your children that the GOD that created the world was not the ONE TRUE CHRISTIAN GOD OF THE BIBLE.

Get a few of them to buy in to that and repeat it on the radio and it will be over.

from physical reality.

because such a statement in inane and outside the principles of any scientific discipline.

outside of science ppl can claim any bullshit they like - but they do not have the right to teach this bullshit as science.

That position is held by Idealism.

You have demonstrated your ignorance of Philosophy and Science.

Science does have a philosophical basis. All scientific explorations proceed from the basic philosophical standpoint of the observer.

Materialsim is NOT the de facto Philosophy of Science.

I'm still waiting for you to explain Euler's formula... but since you can't - you've demonstrated you are grasping at straws to validate a pov that is far outside the boundaries of the way science is done.

I'm surely not versed in all areas of science and philosophy, but I am definitely not ignorant about them.

I would suggest you read the statement from the National Academy of Sciences about what constitutes a scientific theory and is considered ESSENTIAL CRITERIA for any scientific theory.

you spout half-baked bullshit here all the time and pretend you know something about science - but it seems pretty obvious that you don't.

so, why should I care that someone like you says I am ignorant about science and philosophy when you have never demonstrated any understanding of the basic premises behind science?

so they make up a theory based on mere research, facts, detailed examinations, and so on, rather than on faith. (But we can't say this under SCOTUS rulings, so we'll call it 'Intelligent Design.')

It's based on nothing but stupid, misguided beliefs.

Evolution is based on scientific fact.

when presenting testimony about the possibility of teaching "intelligent design" in the high school, a court in Dover PA learned that the information presented for intelligent design was all derived from information that had been presented as creationism. Those trying to push creationism in the classroom simply changed the name to make it sound somewhat less idiotic.

In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The ruling was a major setback to the intelligent design movement, which is also waging battles in Georgia and Kansas. Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.

Jones decried the “breathtaking inanity” of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion.

(that's a quote off msnbc at the time of the ruling.)

NOVA did a program on the entire case that it definitely worth watching. here's a link

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Every claim that creationists have made to argue intelligent design have all been discredited by scientists who are leaders in their fields - in biology, geology...even physics.

It is a lie to claim irreducible complexity, which scientists demonstrated in the PA trial, as well.

The mystery of the circle and Euler's formula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_formula

All particle physics (nature of the particles) depends upon their position within the E8 structure. It's all geometry, mystery and beauty.

Observation and then Verified.

and how it relates to human evolution.

since you understand this formula well enough to apply it to a science - can you help me to understand its implications in pure math terms?

No one understands it. Though it's all quite simple ... it's a matter of faith.

since he is a theoretician and I'm sure he is aware of this theory.

I thought it was, perhaps, a mouse trap - that caught a cat.

It's used and accepted, but no one truely understands it. Doesn't that make it a matter of faith?

apparently there are 19 proofs of this formula - which means it has been shown to be demonstrable true as a mathematical theory.

btw, when imaginary numbers are used in evolutionary theory, let me know.

"Some mathematicians consider that Euler's identity follows directly from the definition of the expression ei, so that Euler's identity amounts to nothing more than a tautology. At the other end of the scale, we may quote a 19th century Harvard professor, who said: "It is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth."

is applied to evolutionary theory - then I suppose it is germane to the discussion of the same.

I'm definitely no mathematician, but I do understand the concepts behind evolution and genetics and have seen proofs of the same and there is no other theory that can displace it at this time b/c no other theory has been shown to do so. iow, religion is not a substitute for science in the teaching of science.

Euler's formula indicates information about Euler's forumla and its application.

When intelligent design can find applications for its claims in science, then they can do so. however, there are no papers that have ever been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journals that support creationism/intelligent design.

but if you or Kitty want to explain to me how Euler's formula has anything to do with evolution, I'm happy to listen.

I think that there is evidence of an initial condition that defines all matter in terms of its position within its densest possible state. A strictly geometrical condition created under intense gravitational conditions. This has nothing to do with evolution. It's the initial state of matter, from which everything else is created. Why can't intelligent design consist of nothing more than geometry, a set of forces, and the introduction of an instability that leads to a lack of predictability? All else is just a function of time.

evolution and the creationist argument is about how humans came to be a life form on this earth.

evolution never argues first causes.

intelligent design presents itself as an argument against evolution.

so, go for your theory - but it's not an argument for creationism within the framework of biological science.

of an intelligently designed system. The only proof is the elegance of devine beauty.

and you are certainly entitled to hold any belief you would like.

but if it doesn't meet the criteria for scientific theory, then it also doesn't address the issue of ID/creationism as a competing theory in biological science.

in order for ID/creationism to state a hypothesis that is relevant to biology, there must be data to evaluate and determine if it is false or not. all data that has been put forward by creationists has been shown to be false.

obviously some people do not like that science operates within the realm of the material world - but if that bothers someone - they simply do not like science and want to replace it with something else.

science, not religion, has made it possible to understand the ways in which our world functions. I would never want to replace science with religion - religion did not find a way to treat horrific diseases or keep people alive after terrible accidents or anything else of the sort.

why, when the course of history indicates that science is a better tool for improving the lives of people - via agriculture, medicine and on and on... why would anyone find that religion offers anything even close to the benefits humans have gained by throwing off the shackles of superstition and creating rigorous rules to challenge any statement that someone makes about the nature of the physical world?

I cannot find any value in that sort of thinking.

If it's just a matter of believers wanting to be able to say god started creation - anyone can hold that belief - but, again, that's no substitute for science and evolution doesn't pretend to be a substitute for that sort of thinking - but that sort of thinking also has no place in a biology class.

I agree, it alone belongs in the classroom. I'm not a creationist who wishes to replace critical thinking and the scientific method. I have no religion and I don't want religion in the classroom.

But, I do believe that the truth can be found through the pursuit of beauty and therein lies value. My belief provides a path, not a proof. I'll leave the proof to you and science.

also rejection of the idea of order-without-design.

at least i'm guessing that's what it is. i don't know a whole lot about intelligent design.

since you want to talk about science.

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.

Here's what the National Academy of Sciences has to say about intelligent design creationism (it recognizes, as did the Judge in PA, that intelligent design is merely creationism with a more "scientific sounding" name:

No scientific evidence supports these viewpoints. On the contrary, as discussed earlier, several independent lines of evidence indicate that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is about 14 billion years old. Rejecting the evidence for these age estimates would mean rejecting not just biological evolution but also fundamental discoveries of modern physics, chemistry, astrophysics, and geology.

Which brings up questions...

Did the intelligent designer get designed himself? Who was his designer?

Was the intelligent designer really so intelligent given some of the serious design flaws of the human body - why do we have an appendix? As far as I can tell, it has no conceivable purpose except to randomly rupture and kill people on occasion. Why was waste disposal routed through the same plumbing as the reproductive systems?

If we were intelligently designed rather than evolved from primates, why do we have so much physiological commonality with them and share 99+% of our DNA with them?

Why did this theory come up out of nowhere juuuuuust after the SCOTUS ruled that teaching biblical creationism in public schools is an unconstitutional use of state power for establishment of religion?

That's just for starters...

Are wrong no matter how much evidence there is or how sound the lines of reasoning behind the theories might be.

They have to throw out all of scientific method and the conclusions derived from the application of scientific method as applied to the development of life in order to begin the development of their "Intelligent Design" idea.

Then they must only accept the "evidence" that fits their pre-conceived notions of how life developed and throw out the evidence that does not fit. After that, it is a cake walk to "prove" their case.

That's the problem with "Intelligent Design" - it does not adhere to scientific method and does not use scientific procedures. It is playacting, pretending that it does, but it does not. The only peer reviews it can pass are those by other believers, not those who use scientific training and methods to evaluate it.

Why is all this shit oozing into GD lately?