- This topic is empty.
-
In a recent post on religion in schools, someone mentioned Intelligent Design. The two things are clearly related, but “ID” is big enough for its own thread, I think, so let’s have a debate.
Let’s score the debate like a wrestling match: You earn points for doing things well, and you lose points for doing things poorly.
Rules:
Stating an opinion = +1 point
Giving a reason for your opinion = +2 points
Giving a good reason for your opinion = +3 points
Debunking a false claim = +2 points
Exposing a poorly made argument = +3 points
Expressing scorn for an opponent = -1 point
Expressing scorn for an opinion = -1 point
Being snarky = Technical Foul
Now then . . . to get us started . . .
Anybody recognize me?
Hint: I’m Canadian. Old school. (Very old school.)
Some might think me “intelligent”; while others will demur.
It could be argued either way.
Per Ken’s quote:
. . . the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific proposition. —Judge Jones
Judge Jones is describing a fallacy called “argument from ignorance,” which goes like this:
I don’t know what causes A.
Therefore A MUST be caused by B.
Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson uses “argument from ignorance” to characterize the way some people justify their belief in extraterrestrial intelligence. They say:
I saw something odd in the sky.
I can’t explain what it was.
Therefore, it MUST have been an alien spaceship.
Translated to ID, the argument goes like this:
Biological organisms are complicated.
I can’t explain how such complexity could come about.
God must be responsible.
************************************************************************************
I’m not sure I follow mpento’s logic above, except to the extent that it demonstrates how difficult the problem is. But anyway, recognizing that God is nothing but a huge paradox might actually be a good start . . .
A paradox is an interesting critter too, you know. Just like an Anomalocaris.
The Anomalocaris and the other creatures of the Burgess Shale evolved some 500 million of years ago. The reason these critters are relevant to this debate is this:
Many of the Burgess Shale life forms were complex and fascinating. Looking at them, you might conclude that they represent intelligent design. However, most of them ultimately perished, and not just because of climate conditions or meteor strikes, either. Most of them just . . . died out, victims of an unsucessful body type. In fact, biologists now think of the Cambrian Era as a time of prolific natural experimentation in design. Designs that were good were “kept”; those that weren’t died out.
So I can see how someone could perceive the hand of a designer at work in the Cambrian. At the same time it makes you wonder: If a design truly represents intelligence, then why wouldn’t that design ultimately succeed?
Did the Designer just goof up? Or what?
Perhaps we should ask Hallucigenia.
The way some people think about complexity is the same way they think about coincidence. Which is to say, sloppily. And magically.
http://www.wimp.com/justcoincidence/
Now I’ll be the first to admit that if humans were incapable of magical thinking, life here on Earth wouldn’t be very . . . well . . . magical.
—Which is not to say that I reject Intelligent Design out of hand just because there’s a bit of pixie dust in it. In fact, I’m more than willing to entertain ID as a theory. But I do wish ID proponents would show a little more um . . . Intellectual Discipline.
They can start by defining what constitutes intelligence. Does it equate to complexity, for example? I don’t think so.
You see, just because one design is more complex than another doesn’t mean that it’s the more intelligent of the two. In fact, some of Nature’s most elegant answers are also the simplest.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.