Scientists as Kings?

Intelligent Design is clearly pseudo science promoted as a way of getting religious dogma into US schools. Which is a shame since the idea of measuring 'design' as an abstract dimension is interesting, and whether our intelligence is 'algorithmic' is a pretty fundamental issue. And if it's not how did it arise from algorithmic processes?

Paul

Paul,

quote:

Which is a shame since the idea of measuring 'design' as an abstract dimension is interesting

Design, or the appearance thereof, is an interesting thing to pursue, but it's already being pursued by evolutionary biologists. They just call it something else -- adaptation through natural selection.

Joe

What if they were examining a piece of apparently shaped rock? Tool or accident of nature?

Or another lifeform. If it were metal and full of transistors the answer might be obvious but otherwise? As soon as we accept that intelligent life can arise naturally we imply that designed life might be found because we have an intelligent designer and a demonstration that no magic need be involved..

If genetic engineers don't sign their work can we tell?

Paul

quote:

Or another lifeform. If it were metal and full of transistors the answer might be obvious but otherwise? As soon as we accept that intelligent life can arise naturally we imply that designed life might be found because we have an intelligent designer and a demonstration that no magic need be involved..

The first two sentences I can follow. The last one i can't.

"As soon as we accept that intelligent life can arise naturally"...I don't think we have got to the point where we can "accept.......". and I am not sure what you mean by "naturally"

"we imply that designed life might be found because we have an intelligent designer"....this is the bit that I don't really follow.

"and a demonstration that no magic need be involved" again, not sure what you mean by magic.

It strikes me that you need a considerable leap of faith (pun intended) to get from one end of this sentence to the other. but i'm sure a few words of explanation will help....

Cheers

Don

Paul

quote:

What if they were examining a piece of apparently shaped rock? Tool or accident of nature?

By definition, evolutionary biologists aren't concerned about rocks -- because they are not self-replicating entities subject to non-random mortality -- but I see your point. How do you separate something that is truly designed from something with the appearance of design?

quote:

If genetic engineers don't sign their work can we tell?

Presumably, a good engineer wouldn't use so much redundant and junk (non-coding) DNA as we see in organisms, but I digress...

If you look more closely at a given organ or structure or a whole organism itself, it becomes clear that what appears to be designed is really an example of mediocre or flawed design fixed up as best as one could hope.

An intelligent designer presumably starts with a clean slate, without a need to incorporate elements of existing designs. As such, this designer wouldn't make such obvious blunders as putting the breathing pipe (trachea) right next to the eating pipe (esophagus). It's simply bad design -- one little slip up of the epiglottis while eating and, cough, cough, cough, gasp, gasp, gasp, it's over. Why would you ever design an organism that way? Makes sense, however, if you realize that land vertebrates evolved from fish, animals in which such an arrangement of plumbing isn't deadly.

Natural selection doesn't start with a blank slate. It works by modifying existing structures, organs, and so on, so you would expect these structures to be less than perfect, but improved over time about as much as you could hope without ditching the whole thing in the first place.

The natural world is replete with such examples — whales and dolphins, purely marine organisms, having air-breathing lungs like all mammals, instead of much more practical gills like all fish. Why would an intelligent designer give sharks gills, but whales lungs? It must be a pain in the arse having to surface every couple of minutes to get another breath of air.

Incidentally, I find it odd that proponents of intelligent design invoke a designer to explain what they think couldn’t have arisen by natural selection, but see no contradiction assuming the existence of a designer more complicated than the thing, which it (or Him) presumably has designed. Who designed the Designer?

Joe

quote:

Who designed the Designer?

This is part of my (current) ultimate question. (given that I have my doubts that we are intelligent enough to know what the real 'Big' questions are....

You could, for example, ask, Has the Designer always existed?

Cheers

Don

quote:

As soon as we accept that intelligent life can arise naturally we imply that designed life might be found because we have an intelligent designer and a demonstration that no magic need be involved..

If we accept that we, life on earth, arose without 'intelligent' or supernatural input yet can possess 'intelligence' then we have a good argument that life or intelligence requires no supernatural input. Therefore we could, in principle, design it. So if we were to encounter extra-terrestrial life it becomes a valid question to ask whether it were designed or not. We have ourselves as examples of potential intelligent designers.

I'm pretty sure this isn't what the Discovery Institute have in mind.

Paul

Paul,


Sorry, I misunderstood your earlier post. I now see what you're driving at.

quote:

I'm pretty sure this isn't what the Discovery Institute have in mind.

Yeah, sounds more like a science fiction plot involving pod people.

Joe

quote:

Originally posted by HTK:

quote:

Originally posted by TomK:
I cannot believe some of the stuff that's appeared in this thread since I last visited. Science is not just another belief system, i.e. another religion. Science is question, answer, question, answer, etc. It's based on observing reality, putting forward explanations for the observations, and adjusting the explanations if they don't match the observations. It's about being totally open minded which is not the same as being gullible.

And those who take that position either don’t know the first thing about science or have an agenda – what a surprise.. Engaging scientists in argument is an attempt to give ID some pseudo credibility. There is no scientific debate over ID.

Cheers

Hurry

Please explain.

Paul,

"If we accept that we, life on earth, arose without 'intelligent' or supernatural input yet can possess 'intelligence' then we have a good argument that life or intelligence requires no supernatural input."

Forgive me on this one, but this seems to be getting pretty close to 'going round in circles'

I would add, that just becuase we are able to reconfigure matter into animal or vegetable life (I know we can't yet, but lets assume we do one day), it's no proof that a supernatural being (god) didn't start the the ball rolling in the first place.

We have managed to do a number of things that we think are clever, but I'm not convinced that we have really begun to sctratch the surface of true knowledge or understanding. But this is only supposition.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Yeah, sounds more like a science fiction plot involving pod people.

You've met them too?

Paul

quote:

Originally posted by HTK:

quote:

Originally posted by TomK:
I cannot believe some of the stuff that's appeared in this thread since I last visited. Science is not just another belief system, i.e. another religion. Science is question, answer, question, answer, etc. It's based on observing reality, putting forward explanations for the observations, and adjusting the explanations if they don't match the observations. It's about being totally open minded which is not the same as being gullible.

And those who take that position either don’t know the first thing about science or have an agenda – what a surprise.. Engaging scientists in argument is an attempt to give ID some pseudo credibility. There is no scientific debate over ID.

Cheers

Hurry

OK, given that I'm one who takes that position and therefore doesn't know the first thing about science please educate me. Please tell me, who spent 5 years at Allan Glens High School of Science, studied Mathematics, Physics and Computing at University for 4 years, and who has worked for 30 years in a science based profession, where I've gone wrong.

Please educate me.

Try this.

I read it as Harry concurring with you.

FWIW

Now back to the Pod People.

Paul

quote:

Originally posted by TomK:

OK, given that I'm one who takes that position and therefore doesn't know the first thing about science please educate me. Please tell me, who spent 5 years at Allan Glens High School of Science, studied Mathematics, Physics and Computing at University for 4 years, and who has worked for 30 years in a science based profession, where I've gone wrong.

Please educate me.

Try this.

Ooooohhhh toucyyyyyyyy. Read it again, I’m agreeing with you.

Do you want an argument about who’s more qualified to post on this thread?

OK then. My dad’s bigger than your dad.

If God is all powerful, could he create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?

Back to Deane's original question,

I would be reluctant to let ANY single-focus group run anything of importance other than their single-focus subject. And then I would not tollerate any hint of intollerance by such group(s).

I wouldn't let the Christians run the world, nor the Muslims, or any other religious group, fundamentalist or otherwise. Nor would I let the scientists, or the artists, or the economists. But I wouldn't ban anybody from participating in government simply because they happended to be a Christian, Muslim, scientist, artist or economist.

As for letting politicians run anything......


Now, back to the origins of life and the universe and what ever lies beyond.....

Can anybody outline, in laymans' terms "Higgs boson"; the "God particle"; "CERN" and "2007".

Could this be THE defining moment in our understanding?, or just another step along an infinite road?

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

[...].


Now, back to the origins of life and the universe and what ever lies beyond.....

Can anybody outline, in laymans' terms "Higgs boson"; the "God particle"; "CERN" and "2007".

Could this be THE defining moment in our understanding?, or just another step along an infinite road?

Cheers

Don

Another step. I would think, if that does not sound too trite. Fredrik

Fredrik,

I am inclined to agree. But there are a lot of people in Switzerland who are expecting something spectacular.

I trust they all have open minds.

I shall always remember the preface in my chemistry book at school, which stated (something like) " if you want to understand HOW chemistry works, read on. If you want to know WHY its like this, ask God" (and I went to school in Co Durham 50 years ago, not Dover Pa. last week)

Made me realise that science and religion are two separate subjects, and best kept well apart.

Cheers

Don

Dear Don,

I had a wonderful Physics Lecturer, who used to say of science, that it 'the best guess yet!' Faith does not enter into it! If facts hitherto unknown become apparent, then a theory will be found, and tested and tested till it is shown as true to the facts as known or false. No theory has any right to exist without questioning and indefinately. The whole point is to question the theory, and probe the facts!

So where I come unstuck with religeon of any sort, but particularly the Judeo-Christian system that I was brought up in, is the Philosophical Question Of Evil.

If Intelligent Design is at work how does it explain Hitler, or any of the other monstrous dictators of the last two millenia? I have no problem with the Christian Ethic (if only it were applied by those proclaiming themselves Christian), but have a terrible problem having the proposition put forward that the articles of faith of Christianity shouold not be questioned as deeply as scientific theory, and that this should be never ending. AND that it should explain itself.

I happen to have completely lost the faith I was brought up in, simply because no Christian has been able to rationalise why I should believe it. Heaven or Hell is not good enough! Has anyone shown they exist! But Evil on Earth exists. So I reckon that one should live life with a view to being good without the sanction of Hell or the promise of Heaven. Thus I respect and admire science, even with the faults of some individual scientists, but have yet to see why religeon should even be a subject for schools to teach beyond the necessay cultural awareness, which can, if done well, breed true tolerance.

Sincerely, Fredrik

quote:

Made me realise that science and religion are two separate subjects, and best kept well apart.

Fredrik,

In addition to the above, I try not to mix a belief in an Almighty, with any partictular religious doctrine.

Each religious doctrine has developed man-made rules about what god is like and how we should live our lives in that light. Its possible that one/some/all of our religions are right (ie the rule actually did come from god), but I am not convinced of this. eg its possible that Jesus is the Son of God. I simply don't know.

Likewise, I don't have any pre-suposition about the 'nature' of an 'almighty'. Even the Christian Church can't decide whether He is a god of wrath or kindness. But, I think its worth remembering that even parents who love their children dearly, can bully them, wallop them, and punish them in all sorts of ways. If (and its a Big if) He made us in His image, then I can imagine a few tantrums from time to time.

But I don't know why.

Cheers

Don

Dear Don,

I went through a phase of thinking that some Creator must have set the Universe off, even if this Force was unimaginable... Eventually I thought that it was an imponderable concept, and on reading Bertrand Russell, I accepted his comment upon the Universe, which runs something like, "It is a brute fact. Accept it..."

This is the position I now accept. I don't imagine I can work out why the Universe IS or how it got there. I know that people far brighter than me embrace the idea of a Creator, a Lord, or other Deities. I cannot argue with them, but I am 100 per cent behind your notion that science and religeon are as oil and water: Best kept apart, and certainly the mix is only a murky mess at best.

So I say, "Science Good, and Religeon, a question of personal possition and Faith."

I do however totally oppose the idea of science not being subject to scrutiny from a less qualified but never-the-less common sensible general public. I am not sure that science can escape the moral framework that the society that hosts it holds to. Genetic engineering is a prime example of the sort of area where the work of researchers needs to be very carefully regulated, and even though not most people's field of expertise, it is indeed everyone's responsibility to have some clue what is at stake, and apply the normal pressure through electing people who are prepared to monitor and sometimes legislate to contain such activities within reasonable bounds. So far this seem to be working in the UK.

As for Religeon, I would say that Religeous Education might well be a good frame-work for a discussion for religeous explanations of science, not based in the factual evidence, but requiring a leap of faith. The concepts should be contextualised rationally in my view. I find I am so far from what seems normal in society today that I doubt that this approach will actually be the one that wins in the end, however.

All the best from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by JeremyD:
It would be useful if kids were taught logic, rational thinking and scientific method (which presumably they are not) alongside the isolated science subjects they are already taught. It might stop them growing up to be ministers who are happy to allow schools to pass off theology as science.

My kids are 15 and 17, and the most significant differences that I can see between what they are taught and what I was taught at school are:

I was taught history as 'fact' and they are taught that the same event can be perceived and recorded in very different ways depending upon the background and viewpoint of the observer, and is therefore always to be questioned, which is, IMHO, enlightened) and...

they don't get taught formal logic or good grammar (which is, also IMHO, a shame).

I had a strict Catholic upbringing so naturally rejected it in my teens. After several postgraduate years in biochemistry I began to form a distinct impression that some kind of higher coordination couldn’t be ruled out (in my head that is). Call it Mother Nature if you will. But this was an opinion. Something to muse over in the bar with my colleagues, along with a thousand other topics of discussion. Just because it was discussed by scientists didn’t make it science. Any more than football or the state of British Rail.

They used to teach everything as fact in schools didn't they? I guess you had to be interested in something and/or go to study it at a higher level before the luxury of relativeism could be incorporated as a part of the deductive process.

BSE springs to mind. Everyone suspected that something had gone to shit. Lay logic didn’t need much application to conclude that we were in trouble. One of the reasons why it took so long to be acted upon was the insistence of the government that there was no hard scientific evidence. Ignorant and stupid as that seemed, it was absolutely correct. A farmer could have told you the score but such input was ‘scientifically unqualified’. Of course, they didn’t exactly throw millions at researching it or act quickly on preliminary findings, which was cynical if effective.

Cheers

Harry

quote:

Originally posted by HTK:

quote:

Originally posted by TomK:

OK, given that I'm one who takes that position and therefore doesn't know the first thing about science please educate me. Please tell me, who spent 5 years at Allan Glens High School of Science, studied Mathematics, Physics and Computing at University for 4 years, and who has worked for 30 years in a science based profession, where I've gone wrong.

Please educate me.

Try this.

Ooooohhhh toucyyyyyyyy. Read it again, I’m agreeing with you.

Do you want an argument about who’s more qualified to post on this thread?

OK then. My dad’s bigger than your dad.

Hastily read it expecting some fundamentalist nonsense which surprised me as you're normally a sensible chap. Got the wrong end of the stick (thought you were referring to my position) and bottled it up over a few hours. Released resentment after a few drams.
Now crawls into a hiding position after tentatively offering to buy Harry a pint next time he's in Linlithgow.

Yet another demonstration of why PCs should come fitted with a breathalyser.

It's good fun though isn't it?

I think most disagreements would be settled in here if we just all went down the pub.

Cheers

Harry