Why creationists do not develop their theory?

[Leog]

I am wondering why those believing in intelligent design of the life on Earth don't develop their theory. Like in any theory they need to provide a set of axioms and using them prove things. And also check their model using existing facts.

For example, they could say that some hidden intelligent designers modify the DNA of living organisms on Earth. It can be done, say, by gamma-rays or other means.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

There seem to be two very different topics garbled up together here.

The first is psychological: Why are some people doing a certain thing? In this case, why are [some] believers in intelligent design choosing to not develop their so-called theory?

The second is philosophical: It is the issue of intelligent design theory itself, and by extension questions regarding what is the criteria of a theory and the proper way to develop and use a theory.

The great risk is that using the former in discussions of the latter is almost certainly ad hominem and a failure to properly use the principle of charity. So while both issues may each be worth discussing in themselves, respectively; great care must be taken not to improperly mix the topics.

To illustrate, some idiot may believe some thing for the stupidest of reasons, but using that fact as some sort of argument against that thing is fallacious.

With all that said, I think most people who believe in creationism do not see it as a scientific theory, and I imagine most who might call it a scientific theory do not have a basic 101 understanding of what a scientific theory is and what criteria an alleged scientific hypothesis/theory must meet to actually be a hypothesis/theory.

[ShrimpMaster]

I am wondering why those believing in intelligent design of the life on Earth don't develop their theory. Like in any theory they need to provide a set of axioms and using them prove things. And also check their model using existing facts.

For example, they could say that some hidden intelligent designers modify the DNA of living organisms on Earth. It can be done, say, by gamma-rays or other means.

It is actually being developed. There is an institute in Seattle, WA called Discovery and it is lead by Stephen Meyer. He employs various scientists. To answer your second question statement, if we found that the DNA of a creature was modified by gamma-rays it would be explained as a natural process. The scientific method cannot evaluate miracles, because it only evaluates repeatable events. So, by nature, science cannot determine the reality of miracles or divine intervention.

-- Updated October 20th, 2014, 10:40 am to add the following --

To add to my previous post - if you agree with me that science cannot validate miracles, then the most plausible alternative for creationists is to demonstrate that certain processes' essential to the existence of life or the universe could not exist naturally. I think this is the best alternative for creationists. An issue with this is that theism does not imply that there are no natural processes, so the line between distinguishing natural and supernatural processes can be blurred especially considering science as an 'ever evolving answer key'. Even if creationists have evidence on their side of the beginning of the universe, irreducible complexity, abiogenesis, etc it is still supplanted by this idea that 'well, we don't know what is before the universe, so who knows if it is God' and then the conversation just ends in disagreement and speculation based on a first cause or the faith that 'one day science will have an answer'.

[ScottieX]

if you agree with me that science cannot validate miracles, then the most plausible alternative for creationists is to demonstrate that certain processes' essential to the existence of life or the universe could not exist naturally. I think this is the best alternative for creationists.

Doesn't this miss the point? If Creationism is obviously true it should have some detail. For example what sort of design structures does god favor such that we can predict what a new organism would look like? This model can later be tested against evolution (not that that is needed since creationism is assumed to be obviously correct) - but only after it is developed.

I find a similar issue occurs when discussing the nature of god - in most conversations theists seem to care that god exists but not about his nature which is is quite confusing as if he obviously exists it is not an interesting discussion - and after that - surely nothing matters more than his nature.

-- Updated October 20th, 2014, 2:32 pm to add the following --

knowing what design structures god likes to use for viruses for example might give us a better understanding of how to protect ourselves against them, or how to work with them rather than against them. Since these designs might not correlate directly with survival they could give much more avenues for leveraging the attributes than one gets from an evolutionary understanding.

[ShrimpMaster]

if you agree with me that science cannot validate miracles, then the most plausible alternative for creationists is to demonstrate that certain processes' essential to the existence of life or the universe could not exist naturally. I think this is the best alternative for creationists.

Doesn't this miss the point? If Creationism is obviously true it should have some detail. For example what sort of design structures does god favor such that we can predict what a new organism would look like? This model can later be tested against evolution (not that that is needed since creationism is assumed to be obviously correct) - but only after it is developed.

I find a similar issue occurs when discussing the nature of god - in most conversations theists seem to care that god exists but not about his nature which is is quite confusing as if he obviously exists it is not an interesting discussion - and after that - surely nothing matters more than his nature.

-- Updated October 20th, 2014, 2:32 pm to add the following --

knowing what design structures god likes to use for viruses for example might give us a better understanding of how to protect ourselves against them, or how to work with them rather than against them. Since these designs might not correlate directly with survival they could give much more avenues for leveraging the attributes than one gets from an evolutionary understanding.

I think you are missing the point. If evolution is true, then it is the way by which God has brought about the various species on the Earth, so it would be pointless to ask whether God favors such and such design, because we would only need to evaluate how these viruses will evolve to determine what they will be like next. Creationists do not suppose that there are no natural processes on the earth.

Your comment about discussing the nature of God with theists is a straw man and I don't see it as relevant to the OP.

[ScottieX]

I think you are missing the point. If evolution is true, then it is the way by which God has brought about the various species on the Earth, so it would be pointless to ask whether God favors such and such design, because we would only need to evaluate how these viruses will evolve to determine what they will be like next. Creationists do not suppose that there are no natural processes on the earth.

Creationists don't believe evolution is true, and they don't share all sorts of fundamental assumptions with that world view - so isn't bringing that into the equation missing the point?

There are other fields where this does work. Libertarians don't spend all day discussing why the working man uniting to throw off the shackles of the military industrial complex is a bad idea. They just aren't on that page at all generally. Similarly Buddhist theorists don't need to spend all day proving that Jesus didn't exist..

And yet you seem to be claiming that such arguments would be the "point". I think that you make that argument demonstrates the issue the OP and I are highlighting.

[Atreyu]

First of all, I wouldn't call the general idea of 'intelligent design' a 'theory'. It simply doesn't rise to that level. It is merely an idea or a general hypothesis and will remain so because it cannot be developed any further. There could be no data to support it, and therefore it can never rise to the level of scientific theory and can only be proven philosophically, that is, by using sound arguments and reason. This is so because there is a law, mostly unknown, that no lower psyche can recognize the existence of a higher one. So there is no way to prove whether any phenomenon is completely mechanical or if there was any unknown conscious intention behind it, unless that entity is on the same level as ourselves psychically (a human) or lower (an animal, plant, or microbe). Any entity 'higher' than ourselves psychically cannot be recognized, any more than two ants crawling on your arm could realize that in fact they are really walking on a highly intelligent being, or any more than your horse could realize that you are more intelligent than it.

So this question of 'intelligent design' remains in the realm of philosophy, and cannot move into the realm of science (theory) due to its very nature.

[ScottieX]

So this question of 'intelligent design' remains in the realm of philosophy, and cannot move into the realm of science (theory) due to its very nature.

If creationists propose that that in itself is an interesting 'development' to the theory.

[Gulnara]

I am wondering why those believing in intelligent design of the life on Earth don't develop their theory. Like in any theory they need to provide a set of axioms and using them prove things. And also check their model using existing facts.

For example, they could say that some hidden intelligent designers modify the DNA of living organisms on Earth. It can be done, say, by gamma-rays or other means.

They can't. They stumble over questions: Do animals go to heaven and do they loose their carnivorous habits in heaven? Or do they eat people who went to heaven? What is considered rightcheous animal or sinful? Which of my cats is a sinner? Does heaven resemble society without pets (as if everyone hates pets suddenly)?

[Logicus]

First, I will state I am not a creationist.

Creationism isn't a theory that competes with science. It is a viewpoint that attempts to prove to scientists (and their audiences) that some peculiarities in nature, discovered by science, cannot be fully explained by science, and that those very things are more easily explained by assuming a "guiding hand", if you will.

This is why they do not develop "their theory": They are attempting to use the data collected by science to disprove science's own conclusions. They are trying to use science to fight science.

[Pastabake]

Any entity 'higher' than ourselves psychically cannot be recognized, any more than two ants crawling on your arm could realize that in fact they are really walking on a highly intelligent being, or any more than your horse could realize that you are more intelligent than it.

This seems a little implausible as most horses are more intelligent than their riders.

[Quotidian]

First of all, 'creationism' and 'intelligent design' are not the same things. Secondly, there are large numbers of books published by intelligent design theorists, some of whom are qualified in subjects like molecular biology, paleontology, and the like. They are of uneven quality, but I don't know if they're all rubbish, as their opponents would say. Of course, it is a highly controversial topic, and those who show an interest in such ideas are routinely castigated for being pseudo-scientific, and so on. But 'scientific materialism' is the mainstream view and it is quite intolerant of any criticism to its basic axioms.

I personally am not persuaded by the arguments of intelligent design, however I am also convinced that the current, scientific understanding of the origin of life and the development of species has major deficiencies. This is mainly because of the fact that neb-darwinism - which is the name of the current mainstream model for evolutionary theory - was deeply influenced by social, cultural and historical factors, in addition to the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

I think the real philosophical issue that is not addressed by the current scientific views are the role and nature of chance in the formation of living things, and also the role and nature of mind. Some ID theorists touch on that also, but it is not really characteristic of their approach. But I think the whole subject is far from settled, and that there are major changes underway in the mainstream sciences.

-- Updated November 18th, 2014, 7:58 pm to add the following --

I am very suspicious of the role assigned to chance in the formation of living beings. In every other field of scientific endeavour, one would rightly expect that a scientific account of how something comes about would provide a causal explanation - 'this happened, because of that'. There is no such explanation for the original formation of living organisms in the current theory; it is literally something that is supposed to have 'just happened'.

Someone once said that this is like redefining swimming as 'things you do in the water', so that 'drowning' could then be categorised as 'a form of swimming'.

[ScottieX]

First of all, 'creationism' and 'intelligent design' are not the same things. Secondly, there are large numbers of books published by intelligent design theorists, some of whom are qualified in subjects like molecular biology, paleontology, and the like.

There is an interesting question here regarding what makes a person or group of people credible. It probably deserves a field in itself because we seem to do such a bad job (particularly in politics!) of getting it right.

In this particular debate however I think there are a lot of indicators to say that the intelligent design group are unreliable or less reliable than the other side of the debate. they could be correct in some regard, but if so, there is a degree to which that is just chance.

I think the real philosophical issue that is not addressed by the current scientific views are the role and nature of chance in the formation of living things, and also the role and nature of mind.

I think this depends on how you look at it. A specific mutation in a specific cell f(or example) may be unlikely but mutation itself is almost certain even over a short time period. this is like in physics where any part of our body (and atom for example) could fall through the floor. But the odds of your whole body doing that are next to nothing. This question obviously does not answer precisely what your body will do but it does tell you something about how it will behave - and this sort of logic is essential to tell you pretty much anything useful in physics.

There is no such explanation for the original formation of living organisms in the current theory; it is literally something that is supposed to have 'just happened'.

this is a slightly unfair question to ask as the person asking it almost never has an idea of the step that they mean by "original formation of living organisms". So they ask an incoherent question and yell "gottcha!" when they don't get an answer.

If they could specify a step (eucaryote cells or proto virus -> virus or whatever) then hypothesis can be offered and peopel can debate if it is a plausible one or not.

[Pastabake]

There is no such explanation for the original formation of living organisms in the current theory; it is literally something that is supposed to have 'just happened'.

Did it 'just happen' or was it inevitable given the conditions? Scientists have also provided many mechanisms for how life might have started. We'll probably never know because we can't exactly replicate the conditions and scale of the early earth, let alone the universe in lab like conditions, let alone the time scales. The general claim from ID is that the odds against life occurring is so great that it would require a time span longer than the universe has existed. So the real problem then is that ID'ers simply can't get their heads around the meaning of probability.

i.e. just because something has a probability of a trillion trillion .... to one doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen tomorrow.

There is no such explanation for the existence of an Intelligent Designer; it is literally something that is supposed to have 'just happened'.

What's more likely, that life should just occur in the form of a very simple self replicating molecules from a chemical soup, or that a fully formed intelligent entity pooped out of nowhere?

Only someone who already believes could possibly think the latter is a more credible explanation.

[Quotidian]

this is a slightly unfair question to ask as the person asking it almost never has an idea of the step that they mean by "original formation of living organisms". So they ask an incoherent question and yell "gottcha!" when they don't get an answer.

Not really. I'm not creationist in the least, but I'm also not a materialist, and I think it's a fair question.

I read a multi-page spread in New Scientist a couple of years back on the latest thinking on a-biogenesis - the process that leads from 'warm pond' to 'pond slime', if you like. I can imagine it happening. Anyway, the article was about the various kinds of environments and environmental dynamics that might have lead to the formation of the first living things, but it was overwhelmingly about biochemistry. So I am still having a problem with the 'why' of it, and also I think that it is far from understood. I think that feeling that 'we have the basic picture, the rest is detail' is seriously amiss in some important way.

The general claim from ID is that the odds against life occurring is so great that it would require a time span longer than the universe has existed. So the real problem then is that ID'ers simply can't get their heads around the meaning of probability...

Oh, you mean they're too stupid to understand mathematics.

I once read about what's called the 'protein hyperspace'. This concerns the way that proteins can 'fold' as part of the reproductive processes of living cells. Protein folding is something for which there are inconcievably huge numbers of possible outcomes - like, larger number than stars in known universe, and so on. I can't remember all the detail, but the statistics are really such that if it was a truly random process, then it might indeed take much longer than the age of the Universe to date to produce anything meaningful purely on the basis of chance or the random bumping together of atoms.

But there's another point to that argument. As it happens, some 'protein folds' are more likely to occur than others. Why is that so? I don't think it's known, but you can easily say: well, that is the 'Grand Design' at work! The Universe is such that it favours certain outcomes! And we know why that is......

So that is a particular kind of design argument that I think is very hard to disprove. It is not that God is actually involved in designing bacterium flagella or beetle wings or what-not, but that the Universe itself is just such a way that, given the right circumstances, life evolves. And the question 'why is the Universe like that', is not really a scientific question. Science operates on the basis of what the natural order is, it doesn't really reveal why it is that way.

There's a good article on design arguments here http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/

One thing I will say is that the kinds of ideas now circulating amongst ID proponents are not going to go away, and that not all of the people circulating them are merely stupid. So the viewpoint that 'they're all just dumb creationists' is probably not a winning strategy.