Intelligent design (ID) states that the universe and its inhabitants could not have evolved by the "blind chance" set forth in Darwinism. Its arguments are mostly concerned with what it considers to be holes in the theory of evolution, and it claims that these holes scientifically prove the presence of an "intelligent designer" in nature.
Unlike creationism, ID does not state that God is the intelligent designer. It only says that there is clear evidence in nature of intelligent design. The designer in ID could be God, but it could also be an extraterrestrial race or some other supernatural force. Also, ID does not draw its arguments directly from the Christian Bible.
The scientific community sees this argument as inherently flawed. It points out that Dembski sets forth a negative hypothesis: Anything not created by chance or law must be designed. But scientists claim that chance, law and design are not mutually exclusive, and they are not the only possibilities. So the process of elimination cannot be applied. And in any event, they say, science does not accept the process of elimination as proof of anything. The scientific method requires a positive hypotheses -- you cannot prove one thing simply by disproving another.There are also widespread claims that the majority of the Discovery Institute's funding comes from Christian fundamentalist organizations and individuals, noting especially the millions of dollars donated by philanthropist Howard Ahmanson, an evangelical Christian, and hundreds of thousands of dollars provided by the Maclellan Foundation, which seeks to "serve strategic international and national organizations committed to furthering the Kingdom of Christ ... by providing financial and leadership resources to extend the Kingdom of God to every tribe, nation, people, and tongue"
Anyway, I was quite happy to read about this court ruling.
Posts
5 comments:
I think the only reason ID was pitted against natural selection was that the "religious" community wanted some sort of a scientifically acceptable theory which will enable them to bring back God & Religion in textbooks.
Personally I dont think ID & natural selection are mutually exclusive. ID could have spawned NS. Keyword is "could"
If a certain process cannot be explained by current science there is intelligent design behind the process.
That is quite a leap of faith (no pun!). The key word here is current science. It only means our science has not developed enough to fully explain creation. Using that to justify ID is completely unscientific. Agree with your thoughts, and the ruling.
And I agree with Nikhil too, after all there is a chance NS is the process by which ID imposes itself.
But I still like the FSM theory the most!
Nikhil,
U are write when u say that ID has gained recent importance because the "religious" community wanted some sort of a scientifically acceptable theory which will enable them to bring back God & Religion in textbooks.
But ID did exist before natural selection (In the article). Till darwin proposed natural selection intelligent design was the in thing maybe in the garb of creationism.
Sailesh,
Obviously science has to answer most questions. But just because science has yet to answer certain questions does not mean that God is the answer to the questions.
I remember having read the FSM theory and I just don't see why it makes any sense. Even if there is God there is no reason why he shud be responsible for all the evolution around us. For all the "sins" that this world commits we do see improving average life spans, better lives all because of science. God is sought after only by the less prosperous! Isn't that ironic!
Also many ID supporters say that it is science and not faith. The problem is that the scientists say that there methodologies are not scientific at all. One of the false means being proof by elimination.
By ID I meant ID in its current avatar.
Sailesh: Here is a statement for you. ;) NOTHING CAN EVER FULLY EXPLAIN CREATION. Never. If you explain "creation", then who created the "creator"? Isn't that a creation problem all over again? It's an infinite regression having no end.
Remember you heard it from me first :)
Nikhil, you arent the first to point this out, its been around for a long time. And its a pretty weak argument to support "creation can never be explained".
Here is another idea (new or otherwise, I dont claim credit for it) doing the rounds among scientists. What you are talking about is a linear hierarchy of creation, a linear process of cause and effect. Its only a limitation of the human mind that we think of nature as a linear hierarchy.
But as you know, quantum mechanics throws the order of cause and effect out of the window. Effect can precede the cause. The hierarchy is no longer linear, it is tangled. In tangled heirarchy, nature (more correctly, the math that describes tangled hierarchy) loops back on itself, and is thus without beginning or end. Sort of something like unbounded, but finite, but not quite!
Tangled heirarchy basically says that the universe just is. (If you delve deeper into the more recent findings, the theory that the universe is an illusion is gaining more and more acceptance among scientists.) There is no infinite regression of creation here, its more like a loop back to itself; and no, its not the same thing as what you are saying. With this theory, creation can be explained, and quantum mechanics is incredibly close to doing that.
Sanjit, I agreed to all the points you made without qualifications :) The only thing I want to point out is that "God" does not mean an external creator, but rather some process that is an intrinsic part of the universe that causes the universe to be as it is (the presence of which even the scientists do not deny).
The FSM theory is just a parody on ID. I take neither of them seriously.
Post a Comment