NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a real simple question... isn't Intellegent Design a philosophical view point ?

Philosophy
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods(essentially the scientific method).

If this is the case .... given people want to incorporate it into science... Are those supproters then ready to have Philosophy and science taught in tadum ? Descarts Theory or reality could well fit into science just as well as Intellegent Design.

It's my understanding that ID proponents call what they study a "science" because it is empirical evidence they look at. What they then fail to see is that coming to a conclusion that proposes a cause (especially an intelligent one) that exists apart from nature is not scientific.

I have a real simple question... isn't Intellegent Design a philosophical view point ?

yes. but a dumb one that was demolished as being rather silly centuries ago. to be overly generous to ID, it is made up of already falsified hypotheses and fallacious philosophy.

Are those supproters then ready to have Philosophy and science taught in tadum ?

science takes numerous philosphical positions to be fundamental to the project (such as the idea that empiricism is a useful way to gain knowledge). and the question of what exactly makes something science is a completely philosophical one.

ID should never come within 300 meters of a science class, but philosophy of science should be required learning at some point. at the very least for those interested in pursuing science in university.

It's my understanding that ID proponents call what they study a "science" because it is empirical evidence they look at. What they then fail to see is that coming to a conclusion that proposes a cause (especially an intelligent one) that exists apart from nature is not scientific.

nah, what makes it not science is that they fail to look at empirical evidence, do no research, publish in no science journals, and keep spouting long-discredited ideas even after they are pointed out to them repeatedly.

it is entirely possible that the world could in fact have contained empirical evidence of a designer. if that was the case, it would in fact be scientific to say so. but it is not the case.

As far as i can tell.. there is no credible empircal evidence that intellegence is behind evolution... merely they focus on refuting the idea of randomness and assume the opposite.. which itself is nothing more then logical reasoning. This would put it on the same level as Philosophy. So should Descarts and ID be taught together with evolution ? (i know this is definatly not their intention but its what would come of it)

it is entirely possible that the world could in fact have contained empirical evidence of a designer.

Logically, no, it isn't. Any such evidence would be evidence of something outside of the universe - something we cannot logically find.

Logically, no, it isn't. Any such evidence would be evidence of something outside of the universe - something we cannot logically find.

why is it logically impossible for a designer to have clearly written "i did it - designer #145" in multiple places in many different ways across its creation?

why is it logically impossible for a designer to have clearly written "i did it - designer #145" in multiple places in many different ways across its creation?

It isn't. But if we found such evidence, by the logic of science, we would have to conclude that said designer was a part of nature, as we can logically only measure that which is within nature. At that point, we would run into quite the logical paradox.

yes. but a dumb one that was demolished as being rather silly centuries ago. to be overly generous to ID, it is made up of already falsified hypotheses and fallacious philosophy.


Demolished? Hardly.

It isn't. But if we found such evidence, by the logic of science, we would have to conclude that said designer was a part of nature, as we can logically only measure that which is within nature. At that point, we would run into quite the logical paradox.

I'm not sure I agree that the designer must be apart from nature. The Christian God is apart from nature, but ID avoids specifiying which God they mean (as if it isn't obvious). I don't see why, philosophically, God couldn't be a part of nature we couldn't observe until we found a note enscribed on each atom or something...