Are there any atheist scientists who support Intelligent Design?

Are there any atheist scientists who support Intelligent Design?
HemlockHangover
Gadfly

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Oct 16, 2012
Location: Seattle

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 318
#1 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 10, 2012 - 6:04 PM:
Subject: Are there any atheist scientists who support Intelligent Design?
I'm not a supporter of I.D., and I suspect the answer to my question falls somewhere between "no" and "very few", but I'm wondering if anyone knows of any scientists who are both self-identifying atheists (not just agnostics) and either support Intelligent Design or who dismiss evolution theory as a whole.
Banno
Tiff's bit of wruff.
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Dow nunder

Total Topics: 470
Total Posts: 10140
#2 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 10, 2012 - 6:09 PM:

I guess you might count Hoyle and Wickramasinghe.
Free Agent
Initiate

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 05, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 60
#3 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 10, 2012 - 6:54 PM:

What justification could you have for being an atheist if you don't believe in evolution? Without evolution the teleological argument is very compelling.
Character Assassin
PF Addict

Usergroup: Deactivated By Request
Joined: Aug 02, 2012
Location: New York, USA

Total Topics: 86
Total Posts: 1418
#4 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 10, 2012 - 7:15 PM:

Free Agent wrote:
What justification could you have for being an atheist if you don't believe in evolution? Without evolution the teleological argument is very compelling.

I'm an atheist. Even if evolution has been shown to be false it would not convince me that the universe was designed.
Ginger17
Forum Veteran

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 04, 2012

Total Topics: 56
Total Posts: 685
#5 - Quote - Permalink
0 of 3 people found this post helpful
Posted Nov 10, 2012 - 7:43 PM:

It seems obvius to me that the universe must be logical or it woulden't exist. There are many ways to evolve a logical universe which may have design flaws Imagine a two story house which is missing a stairs to the upper floor.

Ginger

To Mega Therion
Marxist-Kwalishkidist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 4859
#6 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 11, 2012 - 1:34 AM:

Banno wrote:
I guess you might count Hoyle and Wickramasinghe.


Not really; those that support some form of the panspermia theory simply claim that life had an extraterrestrial origin, in the sense that the first life on Earth were simple organisms that arrived with some extraterrestrial object. These organisms, however, would still evolve in an entirely natural, unguided manner. Hoyle's "Boeing 747" quip is somethimes cited by creationists, but he was simply trying to argue that life could not have originated on Earth.

Which is not to say, by the way, that this is a good theory; I think it isn't, but at least it isn't magic masquerading as science. Just bad science.
HemlockHangover
Gadfly

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Oct 16, 2012
Location: Seattle

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 318
#7 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 11, 2012 - 2:28 AM:

To Mega Therion wrote:


Not really; those that support some form of the panspermia theory simply claim that life had an extraterrestrial origin, in the sense that the first life on Earth were simple organisms that arrived with some extraterrestrial object. These organisms, however, would still evolve in an entirely natural, unguided manner.


Yeah, I agree, I think the key components of I.D. are arguments about "irreducible complexity", "complex-specified information", and "fine tuning" of the universe, which would (hypothetically) apply equally to the origins of any kind of life in the universe.

I'm about as atheistic as you can get, and I think there are good reasons to be deeply skeptical of any teleological framework, no matter how ostensibly non-religious, but I believe the demarcation problem (which is what brought me to this question) needs to be given some thought.

Anyway, I wouldn't say that it's a knock-down indictment of I.D. as a pseudoscience, but the possibility that there are almost no atheistic scientist proponents does pose a problem for an ideology that claims not to take its cues from theism.
R.D.Coste
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2012

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 23

Last Blog: Moral Realism

#8 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 11, 2012 - 3:03 AM:

To Mega Therion wrote:


Not really; those that support some form of the panspermia theory simply claim that life had an extraterrestrial origin...


Mega is right. Panspermia is the only theory that allows for intelligent design without a supernatural cause. One can therefore take a atheistic stance and state that god does not exist while still allowing for the apparent design by intelligence in nature (and the universe). I admit it is an attractive solution. The notion that an alien intelligence planted the seeds of life here is appealing on some level. One could take it step further and wed panspermia with directed evolution and claim that we are the product of a grand experiment and that evolution has been helped along in places by our original alien benefactors.

All the "panspermist" has done is to brush the whole problem of creation under the rug while still allowing themselves the intellectual position of atheism. Accepting the above theory, one is then forced to ask, where did the alien intelligence come from? What is the cause of their existence. For an atheist to allow a panspermist notion to enter the fray God is still there, looking in the background, gesturing wildly to be noticed.
To Mega Therion
Marxist-Kwalishkidist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 4859
#9 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 11, 2012 - 3:08 AM:

R.D.Coste wrote:
Mega is right. Panspermia is the only theory that allows for intelligent design without a supernatural cause. One can therefore take a atheistic stance and state that god does not exist while still allowing for the apparent design by intelligence in nature (and the universe). I admit it is an attractive solution. The notion that an alien intelligence planted the seeds of life here is appealing on some level. One could take it step further and wed panspermia with directed evolution and claim that we are the product of a grand experiment and that evolution has been helped along in places by our original alien benefactors.

All the "panspermist" has done is to brush the whole problem of creation under the rug while still allowing themselves the intellectual position of atheism. Accepting the above theory, one is then forced to ask, where did the alien intelligence come from? What is the cause of their existence. For an atheist to allow a panspermist notion to enter the fray God is still there, looking in the background, gesturing wildly to be noticed.


That's not entirely right; adherents of panspermia theories posit that the "seeding" of Earth with life was accidental, not the result of direct interference by some alien intelligence (such a theory would be nearly impossible to prove in any case).
R.D.Coste
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2012

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 23

Last Blog: Moral Realism

#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Nov 11, 2012 - 3:37 AM:

To Mega Therion wrote:


adherents of panspermia theories posit that the "seeding" of Earth with life was accidental


True. That is known as "accidental panspermia". I'm referring to "directed panspermia" (I should have been clearer) as proposed by Crick and others. While one is intentional and the other is not, the ultimate argument remains the same.

locked
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Recent Internal Replies
On Nov 14, 2012 - 6:40 AM, mayor of simpleton replied internally to ducttape's It's onl....
On Nov 13, 2012 - 12:56 PM, mayor of simpleton replied internally to mayor of simpleton's Astronomer Guillermo....

This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.