iDesign @ UCI

Welcome Message To New Students

Interested in Origins?
Join the club.


Mission Statement

FAQ

Organization


MISSION STATEMENT:

iDesign Club at UCI seeks to foster scientific discussions regarding the origins of life and the universe. Theories such as Darwinian evolution, intelligent design, and creationism will be critically analyzed.


FAQ:

Q: WHAT IS THIS CLUB ABOUT?

Origins! We are interested in discussing alternative theories to the origins of biological structures. While the current mainstream theory in academia is Darwinian evolution, we would also like to discuss other viable ideas, such as intelligent design.

Q: WHO CAN BE A MEMBER OF THIS CLUB?

Anybody! Students of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Engineering, Anthropology, and Philosophy may especially find this club intriguing. However, you do not need to have a science background to be an effective member of this club.

Q: WHEN AND WHERE ARE CLUB MEETINGS?

Please check blog entries for time and place.

Q: WHAT IS THE MEMBERSHIP FEE?

Nothing! There are no membership dues.

Q: IS THIS CLUB BIASED TOWARDS ONE SPECIFIC THEORY OF ORIGINS?

Perhaps. Ponder the name of this club. This club is ideologically the mirror of another club at UCI, the Students for Science and Skepticism. However, our main goal is to give a balanced view of the controversy regarding the origins of life so that students can come to an informed conclusion themselves.

Q: WHAT DOES THE LETTER "i" STAND FOR IN iDESIGN?

Good question -- the answer is intelligent.

Q: WHERE IS THE CLUB CONSTITUTION?

We adhere to the minimum constitution that was provided by the Dean of Students. In the future, we plan to draft a comprehensive constitution and bylaws.

Q: IS iDESIGN AFFILIATED WITH ANY ORGANIZATION?

No. However, we are friends with the IDEA Center


ORGANIZATION:

PRESIDENT:
Arthur
Information and Computer Science

VICE PRESIDENT:
Brian
Biology / English

DIRECTOR:
Andrew
English / Economics



Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Charles Townes on Intelligent Design

UCBerkeleyNews has an intriguing interview with Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes, a physicist (hat tip: IDTF). Like Fred Brooks (see my previous post), Townes seems to adhere to both evolution and intelligent design. Here is an interesting quote from the interview:

Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.

Some scientists argue that "well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right." Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that's why it has come out so specially. Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It's very clear that there is evolution, and it's important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent.

Posted by Art at 12:55 AM

7 Comments:

Blogger Bill said...
Would Intelligent Zen Design be "one hand waving?"
6/23/2005 12:23 PM
Blogger Unknown said...
I left the following comment on Dembski's blog under the "2006 Point Counterpoint Forum" heading.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/157#comments

If religion and political ideology isn't the main concern of both parties, and if there's no such thing as "evolutionists" or "Darwinists"... then why are both sides so afraid of this?

I’m grateful for all that ID is doing to enable alternate theories to be heard, but Id just like to know when the middle-ground is going to get their shot at this debate, because there are scientists out there like, Eric D. Schneider and James J. Kay who can produce evidence that life and evolution is a guided manifestation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Here’s the real problem that ID has, that you’ll never hear supporters of evolutionary theory put forth, becuase it would mean compromise, and that’s the last thing in this world that either side wants:


This statement:
ID is not a deduction from religious dogma or scripture. It’s simply the argument that certain features of the natural world–from miniature machines and digital information found in living cells, to the fine-tuning of physical constants–are best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.


It’s easy to establish that the “cause” doesn’t have to be intelligent in origin to explain “guided creation” and/or “guided evolution”, because these things can also be explained by a higher-level physical need for them. For example, the second law of thermodynamics points out the predominant impetus of our expanding universe, and this dominating force can be adduced to represent good reason that the thermodynamic process of the universe would require energy disseminating sytems to arise and evolve to more efficiently satisfy the ever increasing entropic need of an expanding universe that has an increasing negative pressure component.

The hypothesis is then observationally evidenced by our proven capability for increasing our contribution to the entropy of the universe, and it also defines “good reason” why humans would be required to evolve from apes to become the fire-breathing monsters that they are today, especially since our “high-energy physics” contributions fully justify the fine-tuning of the force constants to specifically islolate on humans, rather, sentient life, because this capability makes them “key-players” in the thermodynamic process which directly affects the symmetry of the universe.

In this context, “purpose” falls out of our “higher-function” in nature, and “design” occurs in nature as the most practical means to satisfy a specific need, via the path of least “ultimate” action, so terms like, “purpose” are not outside of science when used in this manner.

You can find a substantial mountain of proof for this assertion, including an independent derivation of the same theory by other scientists at this site:

www.anthropic-principle.ORG

If higher level physics isn’t your bag, then click on the link to the Entropic Anthropic Principle. You can even find some important stuff that can be used by IDists there to shoot down the stereotypical, “explain-it-away” arguments that evolutionISTS spit-out as an ideological knee-jerk response to the enemy. The trick is to hold them to empiricism, becuase the implications of fine tuning are very pointed in our favor if the observed universe is the only possible universe.

I’d really love to debate the cosmology, because you don’t need a designer if the traits or characteristics of our finite universe are carried inherently and perpetually as “imperfections” or imbalances in the energy, and if Stephen Hawking’s latest theory is correct, then that’s exaclty what happens if a true event horizon never forms, becuase information is never truly lost, so the “blue-print” for everything in this universe pre-existed in the energy at the moment of the Big Bang, and causality is not violated when the effect is the cause of the effect…

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2005-06/msg0069755.html
6/25/2005 3:18 AM
Blogger Art said...
Hi island,
Thanks for the long post. IMO, I don't think that thermodynamics can suitably substitute for intelligence. For instance, intelligence currently seems to be the only way to overcome the shortcomings of abiogenesis (see the recent post).
6/28/2005 11:11 PM
Blogger Art said...
lots of ID lawyers and engineers, some mathematicians, an occasional physicist. Not so many biologists. Wonder why that is.

I wonder too. Maybe it's because Darwin's theory has a greater impact on the bio community since they have been studying evolution for a long time. ID would be a complete paradigm shift. But who knows, the tide may be turning.
6/28/2005 11:18 PM
Blogger Unknown said...
Hi art. I already read that, but I think that you missed the point of the book, peer reviewed papers, and the website, that thermodynamics is the driving force that "evolutionists" refuse to recognize is necessary to overcome the "shortcomings" of abiogenesis.
6/29/2005 8:16 AM
Blogger Art said...
Hi island,
Why would evolutionists refuse to recognize thermodynamics, if it is a naturalistic mechanism that can complement natural selection? How can this account for the origin of protocols within the genetic code (the semantics rather than the syntax)? In my opinion, intelligence is the most plausible candidate.
7/01/2005 10:57 PM
Blogger Art said...
Hi Insane Realist,

It seems like you have a philosophical, rather than scientific, objection to coupling design with an old universe. Why would a designer waste so much time? This is a question that young-earth and young-universe creationists have been asking. Perhaps your philosophical objection can be alleviated by investigating the claims of Biblical creationists (Creation-Evolution headlines is an interesting blog).

Another example you point to is the existence of hurricanes and other destructive forces. This is a common question: Why would a good Designer allow pain, evil, and malevolence? I think that this philosophical objection is one of the most potent objections, as it has turned some theists into ardent agnostics. Here are some resources that attempt to answer this problem, from a Christian perspective.
7/22/2005 9:55 PM

Post a Comment

<< Return To Main Blog


iDESIGN BLOGROLL:

The Design Paradigm
Design Watch
Creation-Evolution Headlines
Telic Thoughts
Uncommon Descent
ID the Future
ID Plus
CreationEvolutionDesign
Evolution News
Dualistic Dissension
ID in the UK
ID Update
Intelligently Sequenced


PRO-DESIGN SITES:

Access Research Network
IDEA Center
UCSD IDEA Club
ISCID


PRO-EVOLUTION SITES:

Panda's Thumb
Talk Origins
Students for Science and Skepticism at UCI
NAS: Science and Creationism


PRO-CREATION SITES:

Answers in Genesis
Institute for Creation Research
A.E. Wilder Smith
Reasons to Believe
Baraminology News
CreationWiki


OTHER INTERESTING SITES:

American Scientific Affiliation
Richard Sternberg


ANTEATER LINKS:

University of California, Irvine
New University
Irvine Review
School of Biological Sciences
School of Medicine
School of Physical Sciences
Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Science
Henry Samueli School of Engineering
UCI Athletics
UCI Alumni Association


BLOG ARCHIVES:

June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
April 2007

Copyright © iDesign at UCI 2005. The views presented in this web site are our own. By using this site, you signify that iDesign at UCI is not liable for anything. Site maintained by Arthur Asuncion. Template last modified June 15, 2005.

Powered by Blogger