I dig the site.
I hear insistently that ID is objective. I see the objective
starting point of viewing the universe as, It is the apparent
phenomena of complex parts that seem to be related by forces.
Perhaps, I am naive in my assumption that ID is a blanket analogy
that is used to describe the whole, but I have not seen it in
another light as of yet.
Is ID better than the Chinese concept of Tao, whereas Tao is
as suitable as a blanket analogy that stands neutral to claims
about a deity, but still implies design? Analogies can only be
strengthened, but are also completely verbal and not concrete.
The argument of ID cannot be won or lost because it is a verbal
argument. Also, there are many definitions of Intelligence and
Design. Which ones are we using? If the opposite of design is
disorder, is it imaginable that with the a priori belief in
design that there could ever be non-design, no matter how the
universe or its parts turned out. I agree that constants in the
universe seem to be static. That is why they are called
scientific facts. If we are to suggest a purposeful or
non-purposeful source of these constants, which in philosophy may
be considered as Universals, the arguments belong in the realm of
teleology, not science. If they were ever considered in science,
I believe they would fall into psychology. The studies would be
of how the mind came to these conclusions. But still, it seems
more a philosophy.
Encyclopedia: Teleology (telos: end, purpose) is the
supposition that there is design, purpose, directive principle,
or finality in the works and processes of nature, and the
philosophical study of that purpose. Teleology stands in contrast
to philosophical naturalism, and both ask questions separate from
the questions of science. While reductionist science investigates
natural laws and phenomena, Philosophical naturalism and
teleology investigate the existence or non-existence of an
organizing principle behind those natural laws and phenomena.
Philosophical naturalism asserts that there are no such
principles. Teleology asserts that there are.
I have the most respect for those who are trying to inject
providence into science to give students a more meaningful
education (although it is out of place), but perhaps we could
inject philosophy by itself instead (although the subject matters
would have to include all of the pious and impious conclusions
which usually attack our modern religions, and it is such a large
field that it would be difficult to keep from cherry picking
texts that would seemingly mandate some form of religious
belief).
Providence and ID seem to be self evident for those of faith,
no matter how far science goes in the future. Faith in my
definition is belief without the burden of proof. If we put ID
out there and honestly say that it could be proven wrong,
Falsifiable, what does that say about our faith? And if we "know"
it, and "prove" it, there is no need for faith.
Evolution has some holes to poke in it, but the analogy of
Intelligent Design is quite imperfect. We should approach the
problems of evolution with continuous investigation instead of
offering an analogy that implies something that is imperfect from
what we observe through natural phenomena. We know something
about the mind and about intelligence, and it is not without
great consequences.
First, nowhere in nature phenomena is it proved that a mind
exists without a body, intelligence as well.
Second, pain and suffering is consistent with all intelligence
that we know, as well as learning is. We learn through
experience, example, error, and many other would be impious
sentiments if applied to a deity.
The skeptics look for the difficulty, and the dogmatists look
for the necessity.
A quote of David Hume: "If the whole of natural theology, as
some people seem to maintain, resolves itself to one simple,
though ambiguous, at least undefined, proposition, That the cause
or causes of order in the universe probably bear some remote
analogy to human intelligence: If this proposition be not capable
of extension, variation, or more particular explication: If it
affords no inference that affects human life, or can be the
source of any action or forbearance: And if the analogy,
imperfect as it is, cannot be transferred, with any appearance of
probability, to the other qualities of the mind: If this really
be the case, what can the most inquisitive, contemplative, and
religious man do more than give a plain, philosophical assent to
the proposition, as often as it occurs, and believe that the
arguments on which it is established exceed the objections which
lie against it?" -Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
Anything that anthropomorphizes the source of the universe is
subject to much impious inferences, if it is not presented the
boundaries to which David Hume argues.
Thanks, Bob
