Hoyle Uses the Term "Intelligent Design" in a 1982 Work Making a Design Inference for the Origin of Life By Jonathan Witt Here is an excerpt: ...an early, notable use of the term "intelligent design," is by one of the 20th century's leading scientists, agnostic Fred Hoyle. On January 12th, 1982, Sir Fred Hoyle delivered the Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, entitled "Evolution from Space," which was later reprinted in a book by the same title ... In it he discussed the overwhelming improbability of getting the enzymes needed for even the simplest form of life to function by chance: "... The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare's plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true." (Pages 27-28) This renders all the more implausible the anti-ID claim that intelligent design is just creationism repackaged after a 1987 Supreme Court ruling against biblical creationism. First, like the seminal work of intelligent design, The Mystery of Life's Origin (1984), Hoyle's design argument predates the 1987 ruling by several years. Second, Hoyle wasn't a Christian. He wasn't a Jew. He wasn't even a theist. He was an agnostic who thought the intelligence responsible for first life must have come from within the universe. Third, and also like The Mystery of Life's Origin, Hoyle based his design inference purely on physical evidence and neither appealed to, nor attempted to reconcile his argument with, a particular reading of the Genesis account of creation. Thus, even if it came to light that Hoyle secretly wore bad shoes, attended a Holy Roller congregation in the back woods of Alabama, and peppered all his private conversations with "Praise Gawd!" it wouldn't matter: the substance of his design argument was based on physical evidence rather than Scriptural authority and therefore should be judged on the physical evidence rather than on any hidden motives he may or may not have had.
And all of your articles are irrelevant to ID/Creation. Zeleologist, I notice that even though you have been ridiculed for attempting to defend ID/Creation SOLELY by using appeal to authority, you continue to do so. Do you not understand that you can post a thousand articles up here and none of them will prove anything about the validity of ID/Creation? It is not surprising that you cannot formulate any convincing arguments of your own to support your belief in ID/Creation. Intelligent Design is Creation rebranded. It is a faith-based belief system, and belongs in the privacy of one's home or one's place of worship. There is not now, nor can there ever be, any proof or disproof of ID/Creation. Therefore it is not a scientifically viable theory.
TraderNik: You obviously don't know what an appeal to authority is. According to Wikipedia, an appeal to authority is basing the truth of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Citing someone's data to prove a point is not making an appeal to authority. TraderNik: I would expect an atheist to say that, however, I suspect the majority of lurkers appreciate the articles.
That's funny. What you have cited so far are all opinions of others. There are no data. Maybe you were simply confused about what is an opinion, and what is data. Go back and read your posts. They were all from the opinion columns of newspapers or news magazines. Why were they in the opinion columns rather than in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Because they are not data. The only way that these articles can prove your point, is that people have to agree that the authors of the articles are authorities on this matter. In other words, you were appealing to authority.
Uh...Darwinism and evolutionary theory is an opinion, based on speculative theory derived from observation of data points and intellectual conjecture. Doh! Data points do not connect themselves into some grand theory. Doh! If the vast majority of scientists tomorrow agree that Darwinism and evolutionary theory are false, ID is the underlying force that promotes changes in biological organisms does that make Darwinism and evolutionary theory false? Doh! You crack me up, you really do...
!!!!!! Could I make this stuff up if I tried?? These people are like the Keystone Kops. C'mon now, Zeleologist. I hope you can set our differences aside and admit that this was pretty funny
No, they don't; scientists connect them into theories. This is what science is all about. Only the believers do not need data, since their knowledge is received. Remember your famous quote? Me: ZTroll, what is the origin of life on earth? ZTroll: Magistrates were materialized out of pure potentiality. Hmmm... now let's see. Something tells me that we are never going to be able to design an experiment which would tend to prove or disprove that theory!! Look in the dictionary under 'faith-based beliefs' and you will see a cartoon of Z professing that belief. How much clearer could it get? ID/Creation is pure assertion, and can never be supported by data points. No wonder the ID/Creationists on this thread have such a hard time with pure data.
TraderNik: Where is your evidence for a non-teleological origin of life? Where is your evidence that any major evolutionary feature originated through non-teleological mechanisms?
Red Herring. This thread is not about the preponderance of evidence that life on earth originated non-teleologically. The thread is about the idea that ID is somehow different than Creation. If you doubt that, check the title of the thread. My statement about data was simply a response to your comments about it. In any case, this is the essence of the faith-based belief system. 'Where is your evidence that any major evolutionary feature originated non-teleologically'? Ummm, I hate to tell you this, but in the real world, we do not believe in things because of the absence of proof that they are not true. If this were the case, we could also believe that the world was created by Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Can you prove that this is not true? The claim that ID/Creation is viable because it cannot be disproved reveals the fundamental flaw in the faith-based viewpoint. It shows that ID/Creationists have no need for a logical basis for their belief systems. This is self-evident; faith requires that logic be suspended. To believe in something, the ID/Creationists need only know that it is not proven to be untrue. That is plenty; if it has not been proven to be untrue, then it is true. A Philosopher among us can codify this fallacy for me, I am not smart enough to know what this is, technically speaking. It is amazing that you guys can't at least avoid making arguments which essentially hamstring your own position. Now, with regard to the 'appeal to authority' thing earlier, I once again ask you to set aside our differences of opinion and admit that that was pretty funny!
James Bond 3rd: Nonsense. An Appeal to Authority takes the following form: 1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. 2. Person A makes claim C about subject S. 3. Therefore, C is true. I've done no such thing. Consider the article by Julie Thomas. Does anyone here know who Julie Thomas is? Probably not, therefore, I obviously didn't post her article because she's recognized as an authority. I posted it because she does a good job refuting the bogus claim of Theodosius Dobzhansky that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." A quote that Stu referred to in his post. James Bond 3rd: So what? You ID critics are presenting nothing but your materialistic opinions, therefore, I'm presenting alternative opinions.