Will science prove the existence of parallel universes!?

[garbon]

What about his life?!

[grumbler]

The "watchmaker's argument" is that the observed complexity of life presumes a creator, and is consistent with most varieties of creationism.

Actually, the "watchmaker god" argument didn't proceed from the complexity of the creation (per se) so much as from its existence.  It was an argument about the unknowability of the nature of god from the observation of the universe:  one could presume, upon finding a watch on the street, that there must have been a watchmaker, but one cannot say anything further about the watchmaker just from finding the watch.

As you say, it is consistent with most varieties of creationism, but was about Deism rather than creationism.  It bears no real resemblance to intelligent design, though a lot of ID writers like to claim both that ID is a scientific theory and that it predates science (some tracing it back to the watchmaker god theory, others to Plato).  The biggest difference is that there is nothing fraudulent about the watchmaker god argument.

[grumbler]

God created evolution! 

It will transform your world

Unless your religion is Buddhism or one of the other non-theistic religions. 

[crazy canuck]

/fundamentalist/ Marriage is only between a Man and a Woman /fundamentalist/

[The Minsky Moment]

I was under the impression that Intelligent design is the old watchmaker's argument.

According to the ID people, the theory is that "certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause."  That is a phrase that has all the hallmarks of being put together by a committee.  In fact, assuming one can give meaningful content to the words "intelligent cause," it is essentially a truism - e.g. the Empire State Building is a feature of the universe and in some sense can be said to have an intelligent cause. 

The ID people also are adamant that its a scientific theory and not just a philosophical proposition.

So why?  Why not stake out a real claim like: A Being or Entity willed the universe into existence.  And concede that it might not be a scientific claim strictly speaking?

Because then you have something that under US law probably can't be taught in public schools.

That's why you have a theory that claims to be "scientific" (so it can be taught as science in school) and that is vague and amorphous enough that one can plausibly argue it has nothing to do creationism or religious belief. 

As a scientific or philosophical position it is meaningless mush, but as a lawyer's stratagem, it's got some legs, at least if you can fool some of the people some of the time.

[Malthus]

The "watchmaker's argument" is that the observed complexity of life presumes a creator, and is consistent with most varieties of creationism.

Actually, the "watchmaker god" argument didn't proceed from the complexity of the creation (per se) so much as from its existence.  It was an argument about the unknowability of the nature of god from the observation of the universe:  one could presume, upon finding a watch on the street, that there must have been a watchmaker, but one cannot say anything further about the watchmaker just from finding the watch.

As you say, it is consistent with most varieties of creationism, but was about Deism rather than creationism.  It bears no real resemblance to intelligent design, though a lot of ID writers like to claim both that ID is a scientific theory and that it predates science (some tracing it back to the watchmaker god theory, others to Plato).  The biggest difference is that there is nothing fraudulent about the watchmaker god argument.

Sure, but the reason the existence of a watch presumes a maker is that it is complex. Such a 'functionaly complex' object could never have arisen without a designer; as the world, and life, is even more complex, it too must have a designer. 

Though often confused with the argument from simple analogy, the watchmaker argument from William Paley is a more sophisticated design argument that attempts to avoid Hume's objection to the analogy between worlds and artifacts. Instead of simply asserting a similarity between the material world and some human artifact, Paley's argument proceeds by identifying what he takes to be a reliable indicator of intelligent design:

S]uppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think ... that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?... For this reason, and for no other; namely, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it (Paley 1867, 1).

There are thus two features of a watch that reliably indicate that it is the result of an intelligent design. First, it performs some function that an intelligent agent would regard as valuable; the fact that the watch performs the function of keeping time is something that has value to an intelligent agent. Second, the watch could not perform this function if its parts and mechanisms were differently sized or arranged; the fact that the ability of a watch to keep time depends on the precise shape, size, and arrangement of its parts suggests that the watch has these characteristics because some intelligent agency designed it to these specifications. Taken together, these two characteristics endow the watch with a functional complexity that reliably distinguishes objects that have intelligent designers from objects that do not.

Paley then goes on to argue that the material universe exhibits the same kind of functional complexity as a watch:

Every indicator of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. I mean that the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art, in the complexity, subtilty, and curiosity of the mechanism; and still more, if possible, do they go beyond them in number and variety; yet in a multitude of cases, are not less evidently mechanical, not less evidently contrivances, not less evidently accommodated to their end, or suited to their office, than are the most perfect productions of human ingenuity (Paley 1867, 13).

Since the works of nature possess functional complexity, a reliable indicator of intelligent design, we can justifiably conclude that these works were created by an intelligent agent who designed them to instantiate this property.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/


Note that "intelligent design" here is without capitals - "Intelligent Design" is a modern movement.

[crazy canuck]

And that is why I pointed out earlier that the work at CERN may put an end to the argument that the "design" of the universe can be inferred to be created by some intelligence.  If the CERN observations demonstrate the existence of other parallel universes with random properties then the fact this one universe has the properties required for life is nothing more than chance.

[grumbler]

The "watchmaker's argument" is that the observed complexity of life presumes a creator, and is consistent with most varieties of creationism.

Actually, the "watchmaker god" argument didn't proceed from the complexity of the creation (per se) so much as from its existence.  It was an argument about the unknowability of the nature of god from the observation of the universe:  one could presume, upon finding a watch on the street, that there must have been a watchmaker, but one cannot say anything further about the watchmaker just from finding the watch.

As you say, it is consistent with most varieties of creationism, but was about Deism rather than creationism.  It bears no real resemblance to intelligent design, though a lot of ID writers like to claim both that ID is a scientific theory and that it predates science (some tracing it back to the watchmaker god theory, others to Plato).  The biggest difference is that there is nothing fraudulent about the watchmaker god argument.

Sure, but the reason the existence of a watch presumes a maker is that it is complex. Such a 'functionaly complex' object could never have arisen without a designer; as the world, and life, is even more complex, it too must have a designer. 

Though often confused with the argument from simple analogy, the watchmaker argument from William Paley is a more sophisticated design argument that attempts to avoid Hume's objection to the analogy between worlds and artifacts. Instead of simply asserting a similarity between the material world and some human artifact, Paley's argument proceeds by identifying what he takes to be a reliable indicator of intelligent design:

S]uppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think ... that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?... For this reason, and for no other; namely, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it (Paley 1867, 1).

There are thus two features of a watch that reliably indicate that it is the result of an intelligent design. First, it performs some function that an intelligent agent would regard as valuable; the fact that the watch performs the function of keeping time is something that has value to an intelligent agent. Second, the watch could not perform this function if its parts and mechanisms were differently sized or arranged; the fact that the ability of a watch to keep time depends on the precise shape, size, and arrangement of its parts suggests that the watch has these characteristics because some intelligent agency designed it to these specifications. Taken together, these two characteristics endow the watch with a functional complexity that reliably distinguishes objects that have intelligent designers from objects that do not.

Paley then goes on to argue that the material universe exhibits the same kind of functional complexity as a watch:

Every indicator of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. I mean that the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art, in the complexity, subtilty, and curiosity of the mechanism; and still more, if possible, do they go beyond them in number and variety; yet in a multitude of cases, are not less evidently mechanical, not less evidently contrivances, not less evidently accommodated to their end, or suited to their office, than are the most perfect productions of human ingenuity (Paley 1867, 13).

Since the works of nature possess functional complexity, a reliable indicator of intelligent design, we can justifiably conclude that these works were created by an intelligent agent who designed them to instantiate this property.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/


Note that "intelligent design" here is without capitals - "Intelligent Design" is a modern movement.

Yes, Paley's watchmaker analogy is one of the most quoted ones, and yet intellectually one of the very weakest.  Newton used the concept before Paley, and so did Descartes and others.  Hume, of course, demolished Paley's argument before Paley was even born.

[grumbler]

And that is why I pointed out earlier that the work at CERN may put an end to the argument that the "design" of the universe can be inferred to be created by some intelligence.  If the CERN observations demonstrate the existence of other parallel universes with random properties then the fact this one universe has the properties required for life is nothing more than chance.

I don't think you understand the concept of "other universes" as used in this theory.  The "other universes" would simply be in other dimensions than our own (and, if the theory is correct, wouldn't even be other "universes" because they could interact with this "universe" and thus simply be another part of the newly-expanded universe).  They aren't "parallel" universes with different physical laws; such universes may exist but couldn't be detected (no information interaction between universes, by definition) and so will remain theoretical.

[Malthus]

Yes, Paley's watchmaker analogy is one of the most quoted ones, and yet intellectually one of the very weakest.  Newton used the concept before Paley, and so did Descartes and others.  Hume, of course, demolished Paley's argument before Paley was even born.

Even as a kid I didn't find it very convincing; after all, if something as impressive as a watch required a maker, then presumably the maker of the watch, being even more impressive, required a maker as well ... it's makers all the way down. 

[Valmy]

Even as a kid I didn't find it very convincing; after all, if something as impressive as a watch required a maker, then presumably the maker of the watch, being even more impressive, required a maker as well ... it's makers all the way down. 

Wow you were a very insightful kid.

[Valmy]

Unless your religion is Buddhism or one of the other non-theistic religions. 

Their worlds and lives will remain sadly untransformed

Scientifically pray for them brother grumbler.

[Malthus]

Even as a kid I didn't find it very convincing; after all, if something as impressive as a watch required a maker, then presumably the maker of the watch, being even more impressive, required a maker as well ... it's makers all the way down. 

Wow you were a very insightful kid.

Not really: the actual thought was more like 'if you need a god to make the universe, what do you need to make a god?' 

The Biblical creation myth never made any sense to me - having this god just sitting around in a big nothing, then getting bored and making stuff. Where did he come from?

[Valmy]

The Biblical creation myth never made any sense to me - having this god just sitting around in a big nothing, then getting bored and making stuff. Where did he come from?

That is the awesome unknowable mystery Malthus!

Of course the answer is he is co-eternal with his begotten son. Duh.

[grumbler]

Even as a kid I didn't find it very convincing; after all, if something as impressive as a watch required a maker, then presumably the maker of the watch, being even more impressive, required a maker as well ... it's makers all the way down. 

Plus, as Hume pointed out, a carrot is even more amazing than a watch, and yet you don't presume, when finding a carrot in a field, that someone must have created that carrot.  Hell, you can grow a carrot yourself.