Evolution without accidents and also no intelligence?

@Silence
I really appreciate your previous comment because I think you have come to realise that what we call 'science is all too often an irrational refusal to accept facts. I want to couple this with something Brian wrote earlier:

When are you going to give up on arrogant assertions like these.  You might believe these things, and that is fine, but to make definite statements that they are just so and that scientists  who have had theses rigorously tested in order to get their PHDs are definitely wrong tells me a lot about your assumptions of how right your own thinking is.  I, myself believe that the universe was intelligently designed but I cannot, in all honesty, make the definite claims that you do.  Telling scientists that their work isn't enough because it doesn't match with your beliefs???

@Brian

You would be right to object if scientific research in this area (and many others) were "rigorously tested", but sadly the opposite is usually the case.

I wouldn't say my own PhD was 'rigorously tested' because the experimental results were recorded in my thesis (and in our papers), and the only way to for the examiner to have rigorously tested them would have been for him to repeat my work. Fortunately, my research was not controversial (and so, to be honest, not particularly interesting) and I passed. If the examiner had held a strong dislike for what I wrote, I have no doubt he could have found a way to derail me.

In truth, a lot of science is constrained to produce results that don't cross certain red lines. Problems occur with ingrained scientific assumptions, such as materialism, politically inconvenient research, research which overturns an area of science in which the examiner works, or which overturns some research which formed the basis for the examiner's research, etc.

Generally speaking a thesis is gently massaged where necessary (often with the help of the supervisor) to ensure feathers are not ruffled. Even in my research, I wrote a paper that contradicted some previous research done by someone who was able to grant us access to a particularly powerful piece of equipment. Nobody wanted to upset him, and in the end his name was added to our new paper that contradicted his original paper just to pacify him!

Trust your own gut instinct Brian - that some sort of intelligent process was required for life to get started, and also for it to evolve.

David

And why these constraints on the advancement of science?  Why must science fit or be limited by statements such as 'cannot accept supernatural arguments'?  Why doesn't this apply to non-testables such as string theory, etc?  Who's the arbiter of what is or is not 'supernatural'?

I thought it was this thread but it must have been another (similar) one. There I mentioned the fact that scientists have generally accepted the philosophy of methodological naturalism which basically says that the supernatural is not, by definition, natural and therefore outside of the scope of scientific enquiry. This is why scientists use terms like "cannot accept" - them's the rules. Methodological naturalism does NOT insist that the supernatural does not exist - merely that it cannot be subject to scientific inquiry.

However, methodological naturalism has been conflated with metaphysical naturalism which goes a step further and states categorically that the supernatural does not exist. So when they make the excuse that they are merely following the accepted dictates of the scientific method, they actually expect everyone to assume metaphysical naturalism though this remains unstated.

I actually think this insistence that there is no possibility of intelligence [in terms of Design] unless it's a programmer making a simulation is backfiring.

For myself while I definitely thought Cosmic Fine Tuning was an interesting conundrum one of the things that made me think it was a clue to there being designers was the materialist-atheist advocates who say a Multiverse of (currently?) undetectable universes is a better alternative.

That just struck me as ridiculously ad hoc and desperate. Same with "Consciousness is an Illusion" - I originally didn't think much of the Hard Problem of Consciousness until I saw how sad and desperate the Materialist position on the matter was...

I actually think this insistence that there is no possibility of intelligence unless it's a programmer making a simulation is backfiring.

For myself while I definitely thought Cosmic Fine Tuning was an interesting conundrum one of the things that made me think it was a clue to there being designers was the materialist-atheist advocates who say a Multiverse of (currently?) undetectable universes is a better alternative.

That just struck me as ridiculously ad hoc and desperate. Same with "Consciousness is an Illusion" - I originally didn't think much of the Hard Problem of Consciousness until I saw how sad and desperate the Materialist position on the matter was...

Exactly Sci.  Its one thing to postulate those types of things, but its another entirely to postulate them while concurrently categorically rejecting intelligence as another possible postulate.

I actually think this insistence that there is no possibility of intelligence [in terms of Design] unless it's a programmer making a simulation is backfiring.

I am always amused at the eagerness of some atheist/materialists (e.g. Neil deGrasse Tyson) to speculate on the possibility we live in a simulated reality. This is also true of so-called "hard" sci-fi authors who are often the most dogmatic of materialists. 

On the flip-side, people like Tom Campbell also promote a simulation hypothesis although we here would regard that from a spiritual POV. I'm quite open to that myself.

The simulation theory allows materialists to account for all these apparently designed anomalies that science struggles to explain. The problem with the materialist version is that it requires a very advanced physical intelligence to have created the simulation in the first place (see the Matrix movies and the excellent 13th Floor). But the fact that these super-aliens are conscious and intelligent poses the same problems for their reality - the hard problem and the appearance of design.

While I applaud Shapiro's courage in face of live, materialist/reductionist fire; the wrongheadedness of his statements still confound me.

What are 'natural explanations' and why is intelligence excluded from this solution set?

Define 'supernatural'? If intelligence is part of the driving force (or perhaps THE driving force?) behind life and its evolution is that 'supernatural'?  Or is it only the source of the intelligence itself that creates the problem?  (i.e., a/the 'God' perhaps?)

And why these constraints on the advancement of science?  Why must science fit or be limited by statements such as 'cannot accept supernatural arguments'?  Why doesn't this apply to non-testables such as string theory, etc?  Who's the arbiter of what is or is not 'supernatural'?

They're so twisted up in the fight against religious fundamentalists (which I understand) so as to have become mostly nonsensical in what they're saying.

I'd say the idea that intelligence is a driving force is, indeed, supernatural until such time as evidence is found for it. Note that I am not saying that it's supernatural by definition and so people should give up looking for it.

As far as science not accepting supernatural arguments, when was the last time a scientific question was settled with a supernatural answer? Perhaps what you mean is that science should be open to interesting possibilities that don't fit the usual mold?

~~ Paul

I'd say the idea that intelligence is a driving force is, indeed, supernatural until such time as evidence is found for it.

Indeed.  Same would hold true for string theory, multiverse, etc.  All things scientists readily discuss without evidence, falsifiability, etc.  As I asked, it seems quite arbitrary as to what can be bantered about in scientific circles before it has clear evidential support.

As far as science not accepting supernatural arguments, when was the last time a scientific question was settled with a supernatural answer?

Again, see my previous response (re: esoteric physics theories).

Science (i.e., scientists speaking from their professional capacities) should either a) make no statements at all regarding intelligence or b) leave open the possibility should evidence emerge.  Instead the general feedback from the most vocal in the scientific community is dismissal.  Its intellectually dishonest.

ID is not science as it makes no hypothesis that can be tested and potentially be falsified.

The premesis for this thread is nonsense.

ID is not science as it makes no hypothesis that can be tested and potentially be falsified.

The premesis for this thread is nonsense.

From an excellent article explaining the basics of scientific ID, at https://evolutionnews.org/2021/12/what-i...defend-it/ .

"Intelligent design is a scientific theory that holds that many features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process like natural selection. ID aims to discriminate between objects generated by material mechanisms and those caused by intelligence.

Studying Human Agents
ID theorists start by observing how intelligent agents act when they design things. By studying human intelligent agents, we learn that when intelligent agents act, they generate high levels of information. The type of information that indicates design is generally called specified complexity, or complex and specified information (CSI for short)."

.............................................................................

"The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion. ID uses this precise method:

Observations:

ID theorists begin by observing that intelligent agents produce high levels of CSI.
Hypothesis: ID theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high CSI.

Experiment:

Scientists perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain high CSI. For example, mutational sensitivity tests show enzymes are rich in CSI: they contain highly unlikely orderings of amino acids that match a precise sequence-pattern that is necessary for function. Another easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, wherein a system requires a certain core set of interacting parts to function. Genetic knockout experiments show that some molecular machines are irreducibly complex.

Conclusion:

When ID researchers find high CSI in DNA, proteins, and molecular machines, they conclude that such structures were designed."

From an excellent article explaining the basics of scientific ID, at https://evolutionnews.org/2021/12/what-i...defend-it/ .

Obviously proponents of ID will claim their theories are ‘science’ - but here’s the thing:

1. Lack of Empirical Evidence:
A key component of a scientific theory is its ability to make predictions that can be tested and potentially falsified with empirical data. ID doesn't provide concrete, testable predictions. There are no experiments or observations that could potentially disprove the notion of an intelligent designer.

2. Falsifiability:
According to philosopher Karl Popper, for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable. That means there should be a potential observation or experiment that could show the theory to be false. Because ID involves a supernatural intelligent designer, it falls outside the realm of falsifiable hypotheses, and thus is not considered scientific.

3. Not a Product of Methodological Naturalism:
Science operates under a paradigm known as methodological naturalism, which seeks explanations for observed phenomena based on natural causes and laws. It deliberately does not consider supernatural explanations, as they cannot be reliably tested or examined using the scientific method. ID, on the other hand, postulates a supernatural designer, placing it outside the bounds of methodological naturalism.

4. No Predictive Power:
Theories in science don't just explain current observations; they also provide predictions about future observations. ID doesn't offer specific predictions about what we should expect to see in the natural world, whereas theories like evolution do.

5. Lack of Peer-Reviewed Research: Most theories considered scientific have significant support from the academic community, often demonstrated through peer-reviewed research and articles. ID lacks significant backing in scientific literature.

When it comes to the realm of scientific discourse, theories must meet certain criteria to be considered science.

Even the catholic church rejects ID!