Collins is a very smart man, evidently a sincere Christian, and would undoubtedly be great for the job. But he fundamentally misunderstands Intelligent Design.

Why? Well, he dismissed it as misguided, and then in the very same article cites the arbitrary constants in the universe that are "just so" to make life possible as evidence of God - which is as fine an example of Intelligent Design as you can find.

<link>

Collins is an ID'er. He just prefers to use a different word for it.

No. Intention is a feeling, an emotion, design is an act, a practice.

That's a great point. I do think, however, that the Goldilocks Enigma is a somewhat different case because none of the competing theories are currently any more testable than God is. The multiverse theory may be more scientifically compelling, but is boasts just as little evidence (as far as I know). I've also heard some wild quantum explanations about how the universe exists in a superposition that collapses into an observable state with the "just right" constants when we observe it, a la Schrodinger's Cat.

I do think, however, that the Goldilocks Enigma is a somewhat different case because none of the competing theories are currently any more testable than God is.

Historical events are almost never subject to the scientific method. Sure, in certain instances you can set up an experiment to demonstrate one way that a certain set of conditions and inputs can produce an observed result. But that is by no means evidence that such a set of conditions actually existed at the time. The scientific method (hypothesis, repeated tests, theory) is of limited value in determining what is by its very nature a unique, one time only event.

That does not mean we cannot gain any knowledge about historical events. But the method of doing so reliably requires a different skill set and approach than the strict scientific method. It also requires us to employ more of our assumptions about which of competing possible causes is more likely. Such as . . .

The multiverse theory may be more scientifically compelling, but is boasts just as little evidence

On what basis is a hypothesis (multiverse cannot possibly be called a theory in the scientific sense) that has no evidence to support it more scientifically compelling than a competing hypothesis that also has no scientific evidence to support it? Answer: A presumption towards naturalism and against supernaturalism. This presumption has in no way ever been proven by the scientific method - it couldn't even in principle be tested by that method. But the fact that science restricts itself to natural explanations for natural phenomenon does not in any way prove that all natural phenomenon in fact have natural explanations.

Collins actually demonstrates this in his "theistic evolution" position. Collins and Dawkins both believe that the phenomenon, descent through modification from a common ancestor, actually occured. But the moment you say "God planned it that way" you are admitting design just as surely as the young earth biblical literalists. At that point the only differences are the details.

ID is a round-about way of trying to use pseudo-science to validate stories made thousands of years ago. Mr. Collins seems to separate the two, he accepts the contradictory evidence science presents and Jesus Christ. Not the conclusion I've come too but as long as he's not spraying people with spittle in a rage over their heathenism well, no problem.

BE, you obviously know even less about ID than Collins. Which isn't surprising, I guess.

True Con.: It seems like you are defining intelligent design in a different way than it has usually been understood by its proponents and opponents. I think when most people say ID, they mean the belief that God literally took out his modeling clay and created humans and animals and the earth ~6000 years ago. While theistic evolution & the theistic explanation of the Goldilocks paradox do ultimately acknowledge god as the designer, I don't think that they fall under the umbrella of ID. If you expand the definition of ID to include everyone who thinks that god had some hand in the creation of the universe, the term comes to mean nothing more than 'the cosmology of theists'.

I think when most people say ID, they mean the belief that God literally took out his modeling clay and created humans and animals and the earth ~6000 years ago. While theistic evolution & the theistic explanation of the Goldilocks paradox do ultimately acknowledge god as the designer, I don't think that they fall under the umbrella of ID.

This may be what you think, but you are woefully ignorant. Here are some links that could enlighten you.

<link> <link>

If you expand the definition of ID to include everyone who thinks that god had some hand in the creation of the universe, the term comes to mean nothing more than 'the cosmology of theists'.

The definition includes anyone who thinks a god had some hand in the creation of the universe and that the evidence for that creative work is to be found in the order of the world. The fluffy neo-orthodox who argue that you should believe in God simply on "faith" devoid of any evidence whatsover would not fit in this category.

No, what you're doing is falling for the propoganda. And you take it much further than they do. Your definition does, indeed, render it meaningless.

No, what you're doing is falling for the propoganda.

What propaganda?

And you take it much further than they do. Your definition does, indeed, render it meaningless.

Oh? <link>

<link>

"Intelligent design

Proponents of Intelligent design argue that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. The fine-tuned universe argument is a central premise or presented as a given in many of the published works of prominent Intelligent Design proponents, such as William A. Dembski and Michael Behe."

True Con.:

For someone who bemoans the 'woeful ignorance' of fellow posters you sure are lazy about explaining what ID really is. Posting links is not a very good way of explaining ID to those of us who haven't taken the time to study it thoroughly.

That said, I took a look at your links. . .

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. "

Apparently, ID hinges upon the presence of irreducibly complex systems in nature, which could not have evolved incrementally (because the simpler component systems would not have been advantageous). If these systems are present, Darwinian evolution is false, if they are absent Darwinian evolution adequately explains the facts. In this sense, I suppose ID is a necessary alternative to the Darwinian explanation of life's complexity. So far though, unequivocally irreducibly complex systems have not been found. The best candidate appears to be the bacterial flagellar motor, but wether or not it is truly an example of IC is still being debated in the literature.

The definition includes anyone who thinks a god had some hand in the creation of the universe and that the evidence for that creative work is to be found in the order of the world. The fluffy neo-orthodox who argue that you should believe in God simply on "faith" devoid of any evidence whatsover would not fit in this category.

It seems like a safe prediction that all 'evidence of god's creative work' will ultimately be explained by science (the big exeption may be existance itself, not sure that science can explain that one). Over the last 500 years, time and again scientific explanations have been found for things which were supposedly only explicable as god's handywork. It seems likely that this trend will continue. Thus the 'fluffy neo-orthodox' view may be the sensible one for those who want a secure foundation for their faith. If one's faith depends on evidence of god's existance, science will always have the power to shake and perhaps destroy that faith. If one's faith is founded elsewhere, scientific advances cannot alter it.

For someone who bemoans the 'woeful ignorance' of fellow posters you sure are lazy about explaining what ID really is. Posting links is not a very good way of explaining ID to those of us who haven't taken the time to study it thoroughly.

What could possibly be wrong with directing you to the source material? I'd already explained what ID meant and I was accused of supplying disinformation. That was why I posted the link.

Apparently, ID hinges upon the presence of irreducibly complex systems in nature, which could not have evolved incrementally (because the simpler component systems would not have been advantageous). If these systems are present, Darwinian evolution is false, if they are absent Darwinian evolution adequately explains the facts. In this sense, I suppose ID is a necessary alternative to the Darwinian explanation of life's complexity.

Well, it does not hinge on it, but it certainly is a component.

So far though, unequivocally irreducibly complex systems have not been found. The best candidate appears to be the bacterial flagellar motor, but wether or not it is truly an example of IC is still being debated in the literature.

This is simply not true. It is just the simpler of the examples to study. Actually, living cells themselves are the best example of irreducable complexity. The simplest hypothetically possible cell is more complex than any machine ever made by the finest minds. Keep in mind, that is the simplest possible cell structure - one where even one component being missing makes the whole thing completely non-functional.

It seems like a safe prediction that all 'evidence of god's creative work' will ultimately be explained by science (the big exeption may be existance itself, not sure that science can explain that one). Over the last 500 years, time and again scientific explanations have been found for things which were supposedly only explicable as god's handywork.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. A couple hundred years ago, it was widely assumed that "simple" life forms like bacteria, yeast, and fly maggots spontaneously generated from non-living things as a regular matter of course. It is only with the development of modern science that we have learned that not only is this not true, but these supposedly simple life forms are almost incomprehensibly complex. The origin of life from non-life - the heart of the debate between naturalists and theists - has only become harder for the naturalists to try to explain as we gained more knowledge.

The two insurmountable hurdles for the naturalist is:

1. The fine-tuned universe. Big bang cosmologists tell us there is no particular reason why electrons and protons are exactly oppositely charged, for the weak nuclear force to be exactly as it it, for gravity to be exactly as strong an attraction as it holds, for chemical bonds to be just so strong and no stronger, etc etc. These things are just "givens" in the order of the universe as we find them - but they could just as easily be completely different. And any one of them being different by just a percentage point or two would render life impossible.

2. DNA is not just a machine. It is information. Information is positive evidence of intelligence at work. Nothing in all the universe except a mind can produce information.

Thus the 'fluffy neo-orthodox' view may be the sensible one for those who want a secure foundation for their faith. If one's faith depends on evidence of god's existance, science will always have the power to shake and perhaps destroy that faith. If one's faith is founded elsewhere, scientific advances cannot alter it.

If that were true, I would want no part of it. A belief that is immune to any testing or verification is indistinguishable from a delusion.

. . . is that he holds his "evidence of God" forth as a philosophical dictum, not a scientific one. My problem with Intelligent Design theory isn't with its veracity as an idea, but with its veracity as a scientific idea.

The FACT of evolution is extremely well-supported, not only by the same observations of 150 years ago--changing, ever more complex, contents of layers of fossils; and nested heirarchies of traits seen in species--and in addition by modern molecular observations.

Which means that evolution well deserves to be seen as the "default" explanation for the complexity of life we see. Which means that "intelligent design" must pass the hurdle (which, really, it must pass even WITHOUT the above) of demonstrating that natural processes COULD NOT have produced what we see.

I'm sure you know about the extreme difficulties (actually the impossibility, in any practical sense) of proving a negative. ID will always be religious silliness--baring unforeseen new discoveries (for example, species identical to ours living on other planets).

true conservative - I think the point that other readers are trying to make is that ID does preclude evolution as it is generally understood, and since Collins is a theistic evolutionist, he does not believe in ID. He may use some of the same principles as IDers use to defend his stance - as you do point out in your first post - but he doesn't believe the same thing as they do at root, assuming we're using the narrower definition of Intelligent Design posted by thisislissa, and not the broader definition you posted above of anyone who believes God had a hand in forming the natural world.

(An aside: I'd say both definitions are in common use in Christian circles - but usually, yes, ID is understood to exclude evolution)

thisislissa - You're quite wrong when you say that ID is usually understood to mean that God literally formed the earth out of modeling clay roughly 6000 years ago. MANY IDers - I'd say probably most - are old-earth creationists, affirming that the geological indications that the earth is very old were probably not molded by God to appear that way, but really were formed over eons.

true conservative - I would also be interested to hear you articulate, in your own words, just how you define ID, because it is a slippery term used different ways by a lot of people. That might provide a better basis for further discussion.

For the record, to the extent I have a position, I'm a "theistic evolutionist."