Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



4/24/2018 12:21 pm  #21


Re: Theory of Evolution - yes or no

seigneur wrote:

Miguel wrote:

And as far as intelligent design controversies go, I frankly don't know enough to comment on it.

Intelligent design is just a controversy. It does not reach the level of a coherent theory. The idea is that "design" (in their specific sense) is mathematically measurable or inferrable ("design inference") by means of some probability calculation.

As far as I have looked into it, the intelligent design idea is ludicrous. Hypothetically, would it be possible that for example doctors could examine Lazarus after Jesus raised him from the dead and determine something like, "Yup, the finger of God right there. A miracle detected!"? In my opinion, they would see an ordinary healthy man in front of them, no traces of a miracle.

The general principle is that when God creates, things look absolutely natural. When man creates, things tend to look artificial or at least less than natural. They are qualitatively different kinds of creation that cannot be covered with the same concept of "design", especially when your aim is to put a number on it.

 
I don't know about the miracle issue. Isn't ID just about how there's irreducible complexity in biological systems that cannot be plausibly accounted for by random mechanistic processes? Design could therefore be an inference to the best explanation, etc.

In a way there certainly are biological features that cannot be explained mechanistically, but they don't require us to jump to a designer; rather we can use formal and final causation, for instance. But ID theorists think there is an irreducible complexity in certain things (e.g. cells, I think) that is best explained by a design inference. I just don't know enough about "irreducible complexity" and this darwinian controversy to comment much.

 

4/24/2018 12:41 pm  #22


Re: Theory of Evolution - yes or no

Miguel wrote:

Isn't ID just about how there's irreducible complexity in biological systems that cannot be plausibly accounted for by random mechanistic processes? Design could therefore be an inference to the best explanation, etc.

The ID with irreducible complexity is the Behe variant of the theory. Dembski's variant involves so-called specified complexity with an actual number, above which you are supposed to infer design.

Miguel wrote:

In a way there certainly are biological features that cannot be explained mechanistically, but they don't require us to jump to a designer; rather we can use formal and final causation, for instance. But ID theorists think there is an irreducible complexity in certain things (e.g. cells, I think) that is best explained by a design inference. I just don't know enough about "irreducible complexity" and this darwinian controversy to comment much.

Hardly anything in biology can be explained mechanistically. The mainstream theory of evolution is silent about mechanisms and causes that would be sufficient to explain the diversity in the biosphere. They think "natural selection" is a mechanism that would explain something, but when you look closer, it does not.

But ID is considered a pseudo-science by everyone. It's conceptually flawed enough to merit that title.

     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum