With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
I appreciate he way you have taken time to methodically object. Too much misinformation is out there, and if you don't answer it, people will believe it.
- sologos
September 21, 2008 8:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
But most of it seems to be in the response
Such as
-- Because the NCSE thinks science should be a voting contest--
That's just plain silly, it's the Dissent from Darwinism which attempts to create a controversy where there is none. Even the list does not address the fact of evolution, but rather the explanation of evolution, Darwinian theory. Just because some people believe there to be more than just Darwinism, a position even Darwin would agree with, does not show support that there exist meaningful controversies in evolution let alone neo-Darwinian evolution.
The DI is attempting to create a controversy where there is really none.
- PvM September 21, 2008 9:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I do not wish to begin to defend the DI as I am not familiar enough with their theory. I am glad that someone is trying to oppose the paradigm of undirected chance/non-intelligent necessity as the chief paradigm for everything from cosmogony to the origin of biological diversity, but I appreciate that we are all just scratching the surface of this awesome creation with little more than leaps in the dark. I am not certain that naturalistic methodology has been sufficiently refined to detect or tease out intelligence.
As to your characterization of the controversy as "none", I assume you are using hyperbole to make a point, but I think that there remains quite a lot of controversy which originated long before ID was even a term. The list helps people who are not scientifically inclined to at least consider that Darwinism is not necessarily.
I also have seen a lot of controversy ( how meaningful, only time will tell) even within the Neo-Darwinist camp. Controversy, however, is good for science.
- sologos September 21, 2008 11:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"I am glad that someone is trying to oppose the paradigm of undirected chance/non-intelligent necessity."
Why are you so ignorant about science that you are "glad"? Because your religious sensibilities are offended?
"As to your characterization of the controversy as "none", I assume you are using hyperbole to make a point"
Nope. It is quite true that there is no scientific controversy. There is science and there is anti-science religious nonsense and that does not make a "controversy".
"The list helps people who are not scientifically inclined to at least consider that Darwinism is not necessarily."
In other words, people who do not really understand this non-scientific public relations campaign may be fooled into considering that the scientific Theory of Evolution is not true? Yes, that is the purpose of their public relations campaign.
- onein6billion September 27, 2008 8:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
There is more than naturalism can engage.
Greetings onein6billion:
"Why are you so ignorant about science that you are "glad"? Because your religious sensibilities are offended?"
Religious sensitivities may have accelerated my interest in the debate, but since I have arrived, there appears to be more from both scientific and philosophical perspective that has caught my interest. The naturalistic methodology, like carpentry works fine for what it views. The problem is that doesn't view all of reality. By narrowing its vision, unfortunately, it negates the essence of scientific inquiry. Causality is what we are interested in, wherever the evidence takes us. If we state, de facto, that everything metaphysical is out of bounds, then we shouldn't call it science, or at the very least, we shouldn't deceive ourselves that we are really getting at reality. Perhaps Methodological Naturalism would be the correct name for that type of inquiry, and that is fine as long a we understand its limitations.
"Nope. It is quite true that there is no scientific controversy. There is science and there is anti-science religious nonsense and that does not make a "controversy"."
I don't believe that there is a significant controversy about the concept of natural selection. Darwin deserves a lot of credit for that. There is quite a lot more controversy in the ranks when it comes to the supply of the fittest for the filtering process. Consider for example, the chill from the Neo- Darwinist community when the exclusive role of mutation was questioned, when Lynn Margulis first introduced endosymbiosis.
The truth is that neither the "Chance" involved in the supply, nor the "Necessity" of the filtering process get at the core issue of intelligence operative within them both. God simply allows us, believers and non-believers alike to exercise the methodology to our benefit. Quite compassionate of Him, wouldn't you say?
"In other words, people who do not really understand this non-scientific public relations campaign may be fooled into considering that the scientific Theory of Evolution is not true? Yes, that is the purpose of their public relations campaign."
Well yes, but I would hardly call what the NCSE puts out as neutral in the matter of public relations. In the end, good science will acknowledge its limitations and try to address them. IN the meanwhile, the process needs considerable refinement.
- sologos September 27, 2008 5:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"There is more than naturalism can engage."
And that's why it's called "supernatural". But there can never be any evidence that the supernatural actually affects reality.
"The problem is that doesn't view all of reality"
Riiiight. And just what part of reality is not in view? The supernatural? So what?
"If we state, de facto, that everything metaphysical is out of bounds, then we shouldn't call it science, or at the very least, we shouldn't deceive ourselves that we are really getting at reality."
You wish to change the definition of "science" to include the "metaphysical"? That's silly. The word "philosophy" comes to mind, but it's not science.
"get at the core issue of intelligence operative within them both"
Your assertion is not supported by any evidence.
"God simply allows us"
Your assertion is not supported by any evidence.
"I would hardly call what the NCSE puts out as neutral in the matter of public relations."
Of course not - they are on the side of science, not religion.
"good science will acknowledge its limitations and try to address them"
Riiiight. And how can science do more to "address" its limitations, than by simply admitting them? Science is "materialistic" and perhaps that's a "limitation" and science admits it and you wish to change this in some way?
"IN the meanwhile, the process needs considerable refinement."
Nonsense. Science is the process. How do you wish to "refine" the process of science?
- onein6billion September 28, 2008 9:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
oi6b>>"Open your mind and your brains will fall out."
What value brains without mind?
sologos>>"There is more than naturalism can engage."
oi6b>>"And that's why it's called "supernatural". But there can never be any evidence that the supernatural actually affects reality."
This absolute statement is an excellent illustration of the mistake some naturalists make. Naturalism believes that by ridding itself of supernatural belief, it thereby becomes neutral, rendering its findings objective. Whenever naturalism goes beyond its methodology, it becomes an ideology, not unlike religion. This statement is a belief.
oi6b>>"You wish to change the definition of "science" to include the "metaphysical"? That's silly. The word "philosophy" comes to mind, but it's not science."
Science, it appears as many definitions. I like the original meaning, "knowledge". The experimental method is merely one of its methodologies. It works well, but it requires further refinements if it is to become a tool to discern "knowledge".
sologos>>"get at the core issue of intelligence operative within them both"
oi6b>>"Your assertion is not supported by any evidence."
Only in the same sense that there is no evidence to the contrary. Unless of course there is no such thing as intelligence.
sologos>>"God simply allows us"
oi6b>>"Your assertion is not supported by any evidence."
Which assertion, God, or God allows. If you don't accept the first I am powerless to change your denial.
sologos>>"I would hardly call what the NCSE puts out as neutral in the matter of public relations."
oi6b>>"Of course not - they are on the side of science, not religion."
So non-neutrality is a good thing?
oi6b>>"Riiiight. And how can science do more to "address" its limitations, than by simply admitting them? Science is "materialistic" and perhaps that's a "limitation" and science admits it and you wish to change this in some way?"
Your first question is a good one. I believe that we are attempting to answer that very challenge, mostly prompted, curiously, by the incursion of naturalism into areas it is not yet honed to address. It's a healthy backlash though. As to your second question, I believe you meant to say that MN is materialistic.
oi6b>>"Nonsense. Science is the process. How do you wish to "refine" the process of science?"r
Science HAS processes that have continually been in evolution since its inception.
- sologos October 1, 2008 7:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
--Sologos
I don't believe that there is a significant controversy about the concept of natural selection. Darwin deserves a lot of credit for that. There is quite a lot more controversy in the ranks when it comes to the supply of the fittest for the filtering process. Consider for example, the chill from the Neo- Darwinist community when the exclusive role of mutation was questioned, when Lynn Margulis first introduced endosymbiosis.
--
Cool, now the claim is the arrival of variation. Yes, Margulis' claims were received with scepticism, and it was through hard scientific work that she managed to support her claims and science eventually accepted them. No similarities at all with ID which proposes nothing. As to the supply of the fittest, the issue of the 'arrival of the fittest' is of significant interest right now to science, what do you suggest has ID contributed to this?
The answer is simple: Nothing
--Sologis
The truth is that neither the "Chance" involved in the supply, nor the "Necessity" of the filtering process get at the core issue of intelligence operative within them both. God simply allows us, believers and non-believers alike to exercise the methodology to our benefit. Quite compassionate of Him, wouldn't you say?
--
This is a misleading statement, there is no scientific issue of intelligence operative within both, in fact, science does allow God to be hidden behind these natural processes, it remains silent on such. Let's not pretend though that this is a scientific position.
- PvM September 28, 2008 10:26AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
PvM>>"Cool, now the claim is the arrival of variation. Yes, Margulis' claims were received with scepticism, and it was through hard scientific work that she managed to support her claims and science eventually accepted them. No similarities at all with ID which proposes nothing. As to the supply of the fittest, the issue of the 'arrival of the fittest' is of significant interest right now to science, what do you suggest has ID contributed to this?
The answer is simple: Nothing"
Self-organizing systems reflect constraints, as well as the appearance of randomness. It is significant that the final product itself is intelligent. That a stochastic process can be so fruitful is, itself, a testimony to the intelligence that directs such randomness. I don't know what the DI has contributed to this because I have not thouroughly examined their work.
If I had to take a theoretical stab at it, perhaps this might be one approach. Look at intelligence and design where we can most likely identify it, It seems that in order to distinguish intelligence from "dumb" physical processes, one must first decide whether intelligence even exists in humans, and if so, what it is that distinguishes it from non-intelligence. Likewise for design. What characterizes or demonstrates premeditated intent from pure accident at the only level we can reliably distinguish it, the human level. As obvious as these questions sound, they are actually non-givens. Once that can be agreed upon, it would not be that hard (relatively speaking) to set up a prospective study with rapidly reproducing organisms showing detectable micro-evolution.
PvM>>"This is a misleading statement, there is no scientific issue of intelligence operative within both, in fact, science does allow God to be hidden behind these natural processes, it remains silent on such. Let's not pretend though that this is a scientific position."
Let's instead pretend that intelligence can never be detected? Is there a scientific issue that excludes the operation of intelligence? Your statement reflects your belief. You probably won't find it. Your methodology has infected your worldview. You are a good apologist for naturalism. I prefer to see reality, metaphysical and physical as related. Separate disciplines are certainly fruitful but both science and theology teach us that a bigger picture adds a new dimension. Is there no value to that? Theology and Science should talk again, neither fearing.
- sologos October 1, 2008 8:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I appreciate that you are making attempts to answer all these issues. Apparently there is a lot of misinformation out there about your motives, and if they are left unanswered, people will simply believe them.
I can't say that I agree with the DI in all the details, but I certainly do believe that nature exhibits intelligence and design, not to mention beauty and love. Any one of these 4 alone lends credence to a Creator, as none are necessitated by the mere existence of a universe. In fact the mere fact that there is something rather than nothing, speaks for the hand of a Creator. The fact that all 4 of these coincide, adds momentum to the argument of a Creator.
- sologos September 21, 2008 10:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"but I certainly do believe that nature exhibits intelligence and design, not to mention beauty and love."
But the question is: does intelligent design have scientific merit?
If "nature exhibits intelligence", what does that mean for science? Nature picks living things to fill ecological niches? Survival of the fittest? 90% of all species are now extinct?
If "nature exhibits design", it is "apparent design" or "real design". How can you tell? If it is "real design", what does that mean for science? Science should not look for natural explanations when there might actually be a supernatural explanation?
I don't think "beauty and love" have much meaning for science.
"Any one of these 4 alone lends credence to a Creator"
Now science has certainly left the building. And I'm not much interested in philosophy as long as you don't try to teach it in science class.
- onein6billion September 30, 2008 8:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Fundamental points:
"There are well-credentialed scientists who support intelligent design (ID)"
So what? There are many, many more well-credentialed scientists who say "intelligent design" is nonsense. Either way, this is irrelevant.
"... and are conducting scientific research into ID"
Riiiight. And the results are????
"and publishing it in mainstream scientific venues."
I don't believe it. The "intelligent design" proponents have 12 different? discussions and one of them says "promises to open up new avenues of research". Well, they've been promising for a decade or two and never delivered - enough is enough. Whenever they have really "published" their nonsense, it has been instantly ripped to shreds by knowledgeable scientists.
The rest of this "objection" seems to be directed towards the political processes used by the DI and their opponents. So it is irrelevant to the question "Does intelligent design have scientific merit".
- onein6billion October 1, 2008 7:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
5
11
15
13
11
6
10
8
6
6
9
7
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Scientists See No Scientific Merit in ID
- From National Center for Science Education
By National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Whos is more scientific?
The NCSE's response to ID is that about 90,000 scientist don't believe in ID and you shouldn't either. Surely with 90,000 scientist on their side they can do better than that. I'm waiting. Jim
- Jim
September 10, 2008 12:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Waiting for what?
It's not about 'believing in ID', many people have come to accept by faith the existence of a god, but rather that scientists do not believe that ID has much of anything to offer scientifically speaking.
--NCSE Statement--
It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
--
Of course, if you are interested in the many rebuttals of ID by scientists, then I suggest you show your interest to discuss and we shall see where this leaves. The fact that scientists, even many Christian scientists see no scientific merit in ID is not really much of a surprise given the approach chosen by ID to rely on a scientifically vacuous concept.
So what are you waiting on?
- PvM
September 10, 2008 9:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There is plenty of evidence
Creationism has more solid evidence than evolution does. I hope I am not being offensive or rude with my statements, I just wish to state what I believe is the truth. Anyway, evolution is the only theory being taught in our schools and the evidence backing it up either has a probailty that is beyond scientific verification or it has already been proven wrong and is stilling being taught. It does require faith to believe in God becuase He is greater than anything conceived on the earth. Nevertheless, there is evidence for creation such as the grand canyon, or the utter complexity of the universe which all scientists are well aware of. If we're choosing what is taught in our schools based on the evidence that bakcs it up, than maybe we should also be reconsidering evolution since it is not scientifically valid.
- scrappybiscuit
May 7, 2009 2:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ground that has been coverede
"Creationism has more solid evidence than evolution does."
Actually no it does not... the proof for evolution is quite strong in that 1) we can observe it occuring 2) the fossil record shows changes in lifeforms separated by time 3) genetic analysis shows similarities at the DNA level between similar lifeforms.
"I hope I am not being offensive or rude with my statements, I just wish to state what I believe is the truth."
What we believe is true is quite separate from what we can scientifically demonstrate is true.
"Anyway, evolution is the only theory being taught in our schools and the evidence backing it up either has a probailty that is beyond scientific verification or it has already been proven wrong and is stilling being taught."
The only places that it has ever been 'proven' wrong are in creationist literature... never in a reputable scientific study or journal.
"It does require faith to believe in God because He is greater than anything conceived on the earth."
I completely agree with you, but faith is not evidence.
"Nevertheless, there is evidence for creation such as the grand canyon, or the utter complexity of the universe which all scientists are well aware of."
The Grand Canyon? The evidence for a creationist origin of the Grand Canyon is unbelievably flimsy, and is based on assumptions that are not close to scientifically valid. The same goes for the complexity of the universe... complexity does not require intelligence.
"If we're choosing what is taught in our schools based on the evidence that bakcs it up, than maybe we should also be reconsidering evolution since it is not scientifically valid."
Evolution, though not a perfect picture, comes far closer then any creationist or ID theories in explaining the diversity of life we see around us.
/r
- MrBook
May 9, 2009 8:31AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I question your statements
"1) we can observe it occuring 2) the fossil record shows changes in lifeforms separated by time 3) genetic analysis shows similarities at the DNA level between similar lifeforms."
How do we observe evolution occuring? I do not see one creature evolving into another one.
How do you explain that the fossil record lacks intermediate lifeforms and only shows major transitions of organisms.
Where did the "500 million years" of time dissapear to that evolutionists call the Great Uncomformity?
What specific pieces of the fossil record prove that there were changes in lifeforms separated by time?
How does DNA similarity prove evolution?
You said that the creationist origin of the Grand Canyon is "flimsy," but what specific parts to you beleive are flimsy and what assumptions are you referring to?
You said complexity does not require intellignece. What does it require? According to evolution it only requires random chemical reactions. By the way, in no science lab in the entire world has it been proven that chemical reactions can create life.
Finally,This is toatlly out of curiosity, but what compelled you to decide to believe in the theory of evolution?
Next time I respond I do plan on giving more evidence for creation and against evolution. I just wanted to get a better handle on where you were coming from with your argument. I also want to say that I appreciate your desire to find the truth in the origins of this earth.
- scrappybiscuit
May 9, 2009 1:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
tiny steps
"How do we observe evolution occurring? I do not see one creature evolving into another one."
True, we have not been observing long enough to see species change into other ones. However we can observe small changes as species adapt. Projected over the geological time scale those tiny changes add up to new species.
"How do you explain that the fossil record lacks intermediate lifeforms and only shows major transitions of organisms. "
the fossil record is littered with transitional species... though, due to the random nature of fossilization, there will never be a perfectly complete fossil record.
"Where did the "500 million years" of time dissapear to that evolutionists call the Great Uncomformity?"
That's a geological oddity that appears in North America, it is not found throughout the world. Even then it is not a constant absence... in some places it goes from 500M to 1.7B, and in others (like the grand canyon) it goes from 250M to 1.2B.
"What specific pieces of the fossil record prove that there were changes in lifeforms separated by time?"
Dating the levels it can be seen that specific creatures only existed at specific times... We don't see Dimetrodon remains mixed in with early Homid remains. These creatures are separated by millions of years.
"You said that the creationist origin of the Grand Canyon is "flimsy," but what specific parts to you beleive are flimsy and what assumptions are you referring to?"
The idea of a global flood?
"You said complexity does not require intelligence. What does it require? According to evolution it only requires random chemical reactions. By the way, in no science lab in the entire world has it been proven that chemical reactions can create life. "
Evolution is more then just random chemical reactions. Those reactions are part of a chain reaction that leads to further reactions. It is not throwing a handful of dice on the table over and over waiting for all sixes to show up, it is throwing a handful of dice down... picking up those that did not come up six, and repeating until you get all sixes. Though we have not created life in a lab yet we are close... RNA is self assembling under the right conditions , and the lipids that make up cell walls form microscopic bubbles (empty cells if you would) when placed in water.
"Finally,This is toatlly out of curiosity, but what compelled you to decide to believe in the theory of evolution? "
I don't believe in Evolution... it is a theory. I see the evidence and agree that it is, currently, the best explanation for what we see around us. I was in no way 'compelled'... I've read the books and seen the rocks laid out and it all follows rather nicely.
- MrBook
May 10, 2009 9:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Answer to PvM
When I read Casey Luskin's article he made some very good points. I am sure you read the article so I won't cut and paste them here. My problem is that instead of addressing the points he made in his article those who find no merit in ID attack the writer personally or talk about the weight of scientific opinion against him. Neither argument is scientific in itself. It seems to me that Luskin is being "more scientific" in that he talks about a method for testing ID. Though you disagree with the validity of his argument, you don't address it. That's my point. May I make another point about what "scientific" is? When Crick said molecular machines appear designed but are not, he was never castigated for being "unscientific." If some responds and say those moleculare machines are designed, they are harshly criticized for being "unscientific." Why?
- Jim
September 11, 2008 7:59AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More scientific?
-- It seems to me that Luskin is being "more scientific" in that he talks about a method for testing ID--
That's ironic because Luskin presents no testable ID. Although I understand your confusion where ID claims that showing that a gap in our ignorance, which has been defined to be 'design', should count as a way to test 'ID'. But then ID is merely the negative argument that science cannot explain 'x' and has no relevance to what one commonly perceives ID to be, in other words, ID fails to place 'design' at risk.
Perhaps you can tell me how you believe ID can be tested. Does this mean that since ID's flagellum has been shown to be plausibly evolved that somehow design and the designer have been falsified? Does the fact that regularity and chance processes, contrary to claims by ID proponents, can in fact increase information and complexity mean that ID has been falsified and that the 'designer is dead'? Of course not. At best it means that ID proponents were wrong in making their claims about science and since they never placed the concept of design at risk, ID remains scientifically without content.
If you feel that I have missed other points worth addressing, please let me know. Realize that ID is very good at bait and switch, and that one need to carefully study its claims and arguments to be able to get to the core and come to realize that there is not much there.
I am assuming you know how ID has defined the concepts of 'design' and 'information' and that they are at odds with how science typically defines such terms or how the layperson may interpret such terms?
- PvM
September 11, 2008 9:33AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Another Response to PvM
In answering your questions, I will try to keep on point.
1. You never responded to my comment: When Crick said molecular machines appear designed but are not, he was never castigated for being "unscientific." If some one responds and says those molecular machines are designed, they are harshly criticized for being "unscientific." Why?
2. You write ID is merely a negative argument. I don't know about that (Luskin's article) but is it not normal in scientific discourse to point out the weakness of a theory and then argue against it on the failure to explain away the weakness?
3. Design fails to place ‘design’ at risk. This is partially true. If and when the arguments are answered, such as how DNA evolved, the flagellum, etc., then the ID argument becomes weaker and weaker, as it should. The reverse should also be true. Until that time many of it’s arguments seem to be the most reasonable inference based on the evidence as we understand it today.
4. How can ID be tested? Don’t know how we can test Cricks statement that molecular machines appear to be designed but are not. Or that evolution is a process involving randomness and natural selection. Has that been tested? Still a good question and I believe Luskin has addressed that. It was obviously not to your satisfaction but it looked okay to me. What do you disagree with in that part of Luskin’s article?
5. You say it’s a fact that regularity and chance processes can increase information and complexity. This may be true, but not to the order of magnitude required for a single protein, not to mention the information involved in DNA. I’ve heard about the computer programs, pros and cons.
6. Not sure what you mean by bait and switch.
7. You last statement, I am assuming you know how ID has defined the concepts of 'design' and 'information' and that they are at odds with how science typically defines such terms or how the layperson may interpret such terms? I am just not sure what you mean. I’ve read about the specified complexity argument. Not sure what you mean by at odds with design.
Finally, I just want to say that it appears to me that statements made against ID and their proponents -- made by others, not you -- regarding ID has been so emotionally charged it makes me feel their judgment is affected. It seems that it’s a very powerful argument to say if something appears designed, it may be because it is designed. Some make the statement it may appear designed but it is not. If that is so, where’s the proof?
- Jim
September 11, 2008 3:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Responding to 1 and 2
--Jim---
1. You never responded to my comment: When Crick said molecular machines appear designed but are not, he was never castigated for being "unscientific." If some one responds and says those molecular machines are designed, they are harshly criticized for being "unscientific." Why?
---
Likely because when Crick said it, he had positive hypotheses about how such molecular machines had arisen. And indeed, looking at the genetic evidence it shows, as expected a nested hierarchy. When people say that it looks 'designed' and is 'designed' none of these people presents anything more that just that statement. And for good reasons because ID really cannot say more than that as it is based on an eliminative/negative argument.
PS: I am not sure what Crick said when or where. I have tracked down one of Crick's statements to ID proponents' writings
---
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
--
Source: William A. Dembski "Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences"
The source of the original Crick claim appears to be ""What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery," [1988], Penguin Books: London, 1990, reprint, p.138" and I will have to double check the context.
--Jim---
2. You write ID is merely a negative argument. I don't know about that (Luskin's article) but is it not normal in scientific discourse to point out the weakness of a theory and then argue against it on the failure to explain away the weakness?
---
this is what I call bait and switch or moving the goalposts. When pointing out that ID is vacuous, you state, but well, it keeps science honest. If that were the full extent of ID, then there seems to be no need to get ID pushed into are school curricula, nor would it really add anything to science as this is, as you point out what science already does. Things get worse however, when said 'arguments' against evolutionary theory are based on fallacious, misleading or outright false claims. So even in this aspect I have found ID to be lacking scientific relevance. The real issue of course is that ID proposes nothing beyond 'well science cannot explain 'x' yet'. So what... Why the attempt to call this 'design' and then use bait and switch to conflate the narrow definition of 'design' with how people commonly understand 'design'. That's too Rovian for me...
If the full extent of ID is that it remains 'critical of science' then you would have to agree with me that this renders ID scientifically without content, as it fails to contribute any knowledge to science, other than point out that science does not yet explain 'x'. Look at the bacterial flagella for instance, what has science done to increase our understanding of the flagella versus what has ID done? I can tell you that science has increased our understanding significantly and has proposed, tentative hypotheses. What has ID done? Deny the relevance of the work of these scientists.
to be continued
- PvM
September 11, 2008 4:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
response to 3
--Jim--
3. Design fails to place ‘design’ at risk. This is partially true. If and when the arguments are answered, such as how DNA evolved, the flagellum, etc., then the ID argument becomes weaker and weaker, as it should. The reverse should also be true. Until that time many of it’s arguments seem to be the most reasonable inference based on the evidence as we understand it today.
--
But ID does not explain anything, it merely states 'designed' without anything else. In fact, as Dembski has argued, design does not necessarily necessitate an intelligent designer. How can ID's argument become any weaker when it cannot even compete with 'we don't know' which is a far more scientific default position when our ignorance does not allow us to propose anything relevant yet. Furthermore, unlike science, there is no way ID's position could be strengthened as ignorance nor the absence of an evolutionary explanation can be taken as evidence in favor of 'design'. Unless we define 'design' as 'that which we do not yet understand'. But why call it design then?
- PvM
September 11, 2008 4:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to final words
--Jim--Finally, I just want to say that it appears to me that statements made against ID and their proponents -- made by others, not you -- regarding ID has been so emotionally charged it makes me feel their judgment is affected. It seems that it’s a very powerful argument to say if something appears designed, it may be because it is designed. Some make the statement it may appear designed but it is not. If that is so, where’s the proof?
--
Just look at Darwin who showed how what previously had been seen as requiring design now suddenly did not necessitate design. In other words, while design in the larger sense can never be disproven since we can always propose a designer who used natural law, it can be shown that design is not a requirement or a necessary component.
So we see the evidence strongly point to the fact of evolution (change over time, common ancestry) and thus there is strong evidence that suggests that design in these cases is apparent as it can be explained by processes of regularity and chance. However, we can also agree, that a God could very well have designed through these processes of regularity and chance, making design not a necessity but still a logical plausibility. Of course, there are variants which involve a God who created species at every single step and decided to make it appear to have evolved through natural processes of regularity and chance. That of course, requires one to propose motives and means for which we have no evidence.
Sure, the arguments surrounding ID are emotionally loaded, mostly because of the strong religious overtones however my major concerns are not with the theological flaws of ID but rather how it is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous.
- PvM
September 11, 2008 5:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to part of 4
Or that evolution is a process involving randomness and natural selection. Has that been tested?
--
For the purposes of this post, I am going to assume that you are not challenging randomness in the statistical sense.
In the most strict sense, evolution is the change of allele frequencies in a population over time. Natural selection is the scientific principle that favorable inherited traits (alleles) become more common in populations over time. I have only been skimming these posts, so I am not certain how much of Darwinian biology you agree with, such as basic population genetics principles or biochemistry. Assuming you do agree with most of it and are solely arguing about the ontological facets of it, then above question is quickly answered. If you have a neutral trait (i.e. one with no demonstrable effect upon evolutionary fitness) then the frequency of alleles in a population will fluctuate in a random manner.
Now, using this as a baseline, testing natural selection is quite simple. Say the aforementioned alleles exists a population of yeast cells. These alleles all currently code for proteins that do nothing. These proteins catalyze no reactions, they provide no structural support, they merely exist and the cells transcriptional and translation machinery pumps out a useless protein. Now, a point mutation arises in one of the alleles and the protein encoded by that allele can now digest a certain disaccharide which we will call A. Prior to this there was no other allele at any location on any other chromosome in any of the yeast cells in the population that coded for an enzyme which could catalyze A.
At this point you could test natural selection (that favorable inherited traits become more common over time) by observing the change in allele frequencies after the yeast cells are plated upon a culture where A is the only type of molecule available for cellular energy. Following plating, measure the change in allele frequencies. If the frequencies change so that the A-digesting protein/allele is the only remaining allele, then natural selection as a concept clearly seems correct. Keep repeating until you've made yourself happy that there is no other outcome.
- Idiot Boxer September 11, 2008 6:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Tests of mechanisms and evolution
--Or that evolution is a process involving randomness and natural selection. Has that been tested?--
Yes, in fact it has. First of all we need to understand the meaning of the term 'random' which just means that mutations do not arise in response to environmental needs. More on this later. This has been tested and so far no evidence has been found that seems to contradict this, although some data suggested that mutations did arise in response to needs. However, on closer scrutiny, science discovered the 'SOS response' where organisms enter a stage of hypermutations which combined with the new environmental pressures allows mutations which confer a benefit to quickly spread. As to natural selection, science has tested that natural selection is a real process and has measured many instances of it.
This brings us to the final issue, is natural selection and variation the only mechanism of evolution? The answer is no, just like Darwin suggested, there are other processes, most notably 'random drift'.
- PvM
September 11, 2008 8:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'll be back
You give interesting and complex answers. I will have to read over them several times and think about them. I'll respond when I feel I understand what you are saying. Right now I just don't have the time to digest this.
- Jim
September 11, 2008 5:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No problem
take your time, I'd rather have you think about it, digest it and respond than give a hasty response which would not help us resolve these issues.
No rush. If you have any additional questions, feel free to post them. I actually enjoy a good discussion and you have shown yourself to be willing to evaluate these issues carefully.
- PvM
September 11, 2008 6:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Using the same scientific tools
The following statement by the employee of NCSE is the exact form of inference to the best explanation that ID scientists use to demonstrate that there is intelligence behind life. No one would think that it is by undirected chance that all the names on the list are Steve.
"it becomes more impressive when you realize that all the scientists are named Steve. Census records show that people with those names represent about 1% of the US population, which means that those 900 scientists stand in for at least 90,000 scientists."
ID proponents use exactly the same type of scientific statistical methods to prove beyond reasonable doubt that intelligence was involved in the origin of the cosmos and of life.
- idnetdotcomdotau September 12, 2008 2:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Confused about the principle of best explanation
--IDNet
The following statement by the employee of NCSE is the exact form of inference to the best explanation that ID scientists use to demonstrate that there is intelligence behind life. No one would think that it is by undirected chance that all the names on the list are Steve.
--
No because these are stated requirements. How do we know this? From the available background information.
--
ID proponents use exactly the same type of scientific statistical methods to prove beyond reasonable doubt that intelligence was involved in the origin of the cosmos and of life.
--
ID uses no statistical methods at all. If you disagree, show us how these tools and methods were followed to infer design for the bacterial flagella
And then there was silence...
- PvM
September 12, 2008 3:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Aussies have a say?
When there was a move to distribute "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" DVD to Australian schools, a few worried scientists headed by Michael Archer from UNSW, got together and signed a letter "on behalf of 60,000 scientists and educators". The headlines "60000 Scientists reject ID". There were only 12 signatures on the letter and NO ONE IN ANY OF THE ORGANISATIONS HAD BEEN ASKED THEIR VIEWS.
The good think about being in a position of power is that you can speak for others instead of actually informing them and asking them to speak for themselves.
To comment on whether ID has merit or not, it is minimally necessary that people be properly informed of the arguments involved. Instead of informing us, the NCSE keeps telling us "ID is religion" and "Scientists think ID is silly". How about engaging with the arguments.
- idnetdotcomdotau September 12, 2008 2:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Misleading
--IDNET--
To comment on whether ID has merit or not, it is minimally necessary that people be properly informed of the arguments involved. Instead of informing us, the NCSE keeps telling us "ID is religion" and "Scientists think ID is silly". How about engaging with the arguments.
--
Many people including the NCSE have been involved addressing the arguments. So let's not pretend that no such argument exist. Of course, ID proponents have generally avoided dealing with these objections.
Now that's the rest of the story
- PvM
September 12, 2008 3:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response PvM
Let’s talk about Crick’s statement “Biologist must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” This is very important. Crick may have a positive hypotheses – but it is only a hypotheses. He makes this statement as if it has been proven. Yet many, including young students, accept this as fact as it sounds authoritive. Big mistake. ID reminds us not to make those assumptions. Those assumptions are very important. Those assumptions allow Dawkins to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
The bottom line is some interpretations of evolution leave little room for a caring God.
This is the view that life is the result of random, purposeless arrangements of molecules shaped by natural selection. Where does God come in? Little or no room for God in this interpretation. Hence if you believe that you can be an atheist. If it is true you are almost certainly right in your belief.
But, what if that is not true? And how do we go about determining if it’s true or not? That’s where ID comes in. It tells us from the facts as we understand them today, the most reasonable interpretation of these facts is that this molecular machine was intelligently designed. You say ID cannot say more than that –if that is true– that still is huge. It’s huge because your belief/unbelief in God is a primary world view, and will effect all your perceptions. That’s what happened here.
Example, Crick is an atheist. He sees molecular machines that look designed. He says God could not have done this because there is no God. Therefor, these machines are not designed. That is not good science. He rules out design based on his world view, not on science. He is encouraged to support his hypotheses through good science. Not through bad theology.
As you say, ID is limited in what it can do, but what it does is of enormous importance. It is very important to many around the world whether there is a God or not. Darwinism is often used as scientific proof of no God. Dawkins is only one of many scientist who do this. They get upset when their world view is challenged.
I don’t believe science will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of a personal, caring God. But that’s the point. Right now many are using evolution as if it already has proven that God has nothing to do with our existence. That has not been proven and ID reminds of us of that. Jim
- Jim
September 15, 2008 10:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A caring god
--
The bottom line is some interpretations of evolution leave little room for a caring God.
--
Which I argue is the main reason people have come to embrace ID and object to science. And yet, when God was removed as a necessity from the stability of planetary orbits, noone objected.
So Crick says that we must not confuse what we see with 'design' and proposes a valid, testable scientific hypothesis. ID says that we should not confuse what we see with absence of 'design' and produces no competing hypotheses.
--Jim
I don’t believe science will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of a personal, caring God. But that’s the point. Right now many are using evolution as if it already has proven that God has nothing to do with our existence. That has not been proven and ID reminds of us of that. Jim
--
Science will never be able to do so and if you allow others to define this as if it has happened then you are granting these atheists a lot of power. If ID is just about reminding us of this then surely it has far less of a relevance as a scientific contributor than most imagine it does.
--Jim
This is the view that life is the result of random, purposeless arrangements of molecules shaped by natural selection. Where does God come in? Little or no room for God in this interpretation. Hence if you believe that you can be an atheist. If it is true you are almost certainly right in your belief.
--
Well, atheists have the advantage that they can incorporate science easily as it does not interfere with their philosophical position, but that does not mean that Christians cannot reconcile the fact of evolution, the mechanisms of evolution with the concept of a caring God. In other words, accepting evolution does not force you either way, although I agree that given the position of some Christians, science is in fact at odds with faith. That's too bad, but rather than throw up our arms and proclaim, science must be wrong because I cannot imagine how there is room for a loving God now that He is not a necessity anymore, shows, in my personal opinion, a severe lack of faith.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 11:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Another response to PvM
Which I argue is the main reason people have come to embrace ID and object to science
Couldn’t atheism be the main reason people have come to embrace a certain type of evolution and object to ID? The emotions so commonly seen in the rejection of ID support this.
Well, atheists have the advantage that they can incorporate science easily as it does not interfere with their philosophical position...
Just the reverse is true. An atheist is stuck with no ID. If science leans in that direction, (as ID says it does) that is an interpretation they must reject. The rejection is based on philosophical assumptions, not science. Believers can go from a God who set the universe in motion (if that) and has done nothing since, to a God who involves himself in our daily lives.
- Jim
September 15, 2008 1:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Could it?
--Couldn’t atheism be the main reason people have come to embrace a certain type of evolution and object to ID? The emotions so commonly seen in the rejection of ID support this.
--
Emotions do run high but opposition to ID comes from all sides, not just atheists. In fact, ID's status as lacking scientific content should be a concern to all, not just atheists.
--
Just the reverse is true. An atheist is stuck with no ID. If science leans in that direction, (as ID says it does) that is an interpretation they must reject. The rejection is based on philosophical assumptions, not science. Believers can go from a God who set the universe in motion (if that) and has done nothing since, to a God who involves himself in our daily lives.
--
That assumes that sciences leans in that direction and as I have pointed out such a position is ill supported at best. ID may assert but as a science their contributions remain largely with content.
Was it not you who argued that evolutionary science removes a caring God from consideration? So it seems that you have a similar problem. Of course, ID is not rejected based on its theology which is in the minds of many, quite flawed, but rather on the lack of content scientifically speaking. A God who set it all in motion is quite compatible with science as is the position of atheism. Seems that we can find common ground here. Of course, the concept of design as formulated by ID hardly seems suitable to reach such a scientific conclusion, at best this seems to be a theological interpretation. After all, design is not something that seems directly relevant to science.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 2:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to PvM
ID may assert but as a science their contributions remain largely with content.
I think you meant to type without, not with. A reasonable infrence that a God created us in without content?
- Jim
September 15, 2008 2:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Without content
--
ID may assert but as a science their contributions remain largely with content.
I think you meant to type without, not with. A reasonable infrence that a God created us in without content
--
Not really, remember we were talking about ID as a science.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 2:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
To PvM
Remember the question we are addressing is: Does ID have merit? I have explained why I think it does. It is a part of science if science is a search for the truth. If we are walking togehter and you pick up an object and declare it to be an arrow head, I may say it is a stone. We argue about this. If we are anthropologist on a dig, are we doing science?
- Jim
September 15, 2008 3:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
'Design' or 'design'
--Jim
Remember the question we are addressing is: Does ID have merit? I have explained why I think it does. It is a part of science if science is a search for the truth. If we are walking togehter and you pick up an object and declare it to be an arrow head, I may say it is a stone. We argue about this. If we are anthropologist on a dig, are we doing science?
---
Actually the question is 'does ID have scientific merit' since I am reluctant to address its much stronger theological claims. Again, the confusion of ID with archaeology is understandable but misleading as it suggests that is is how ID infers design. In fact, as I have shown, science's design inference are not based on "we don't understand' thus designed.
So what kind of design are you interested in? The kind science already successfully detects or the kind that seems to be doomed to remain elusive to science, also known as 'rarefied design' [1]
[1]See Wilkins and Elsbery The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance. Biology and Philosophy 16 (November):711-724, 2001.
We should be careful not to confuse ID's approach and definition of design with how the terminology is more commonly used in science and by laypeople as I believe that this has been cause for significant confusion.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 4:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to PvM
But it's more than we don't understand' thus designed. It's specified complexity. Wherever we find specified complexity we find a designer. But for the theological implications this would be non-controversal.
- Jim
September 15, 2008 4:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Specified complexity
--
But it's more than we don't understand' thus designed. It's specified complexity. Wherever we find specified complexity we find a designer. But for the theological implications this would be non-controversal.
--
That is yet another one of these ID claims which lack in much relevance. But for the sake of the reader, let's explore Jim's claim because otherwise the ID proponent may argue that I have not fully represented the ID argument.
Specification is something that is, as is with so many aspects of ID, ill defined and even harder to measure but according to Dembski. first of all in biology, specification seems to be similar to 'function', which in evolution leads to an immediate problem namely that function is also an expected outcome of evolutionary processes.
--
Addressing the particular question regarding whether the bacterial flagellum is specified, Dembski confidently declares that, “Specification is never a problem. The irreducibly complex systems we consider, particularly in biology, always satisfy independently given functional requirements.... For instance, in the case of the bacterial flagellum, humans developed outboard rotary motors well before they figured out that the flagellum was such a machine.”NFL, p. 289.The flagellum functions like an outboard rotary motor. The rotary outboard motor pattern represents a functional requirement independent of biological systems. Therefore, concludes Dembski, the flagellum is specified.
--
Source: Hopward van Till, "E. Coli at the No Free Lunchroom"
http://www.counterbalance.net/id-hvt/isthe2-body.html
In other words, in biology, the complexity part is established through our ignorance and the specification through function, so we can slightly revise our claim to state that in biology 'design' refers to science's ignorance about how a particular system with a function came around.
Note that ID also does not provide any additional side hypotheses to explain from the ID perspective how such specification came about.
In other words, outside biology, what is sufficient to identify some subjective function or pattern which is independent of the system and voila the foundation for a specification arises. Since we are very well aware of the fact that us humans are extremely capable of seeing 'design' in many aspects of life, it should not come as a surprise that under ID's approach the "Old man in the mountain" is as valid a design inference as Mount Rushmore, but of course likely to be wrong. Similarly, the patterns of circles or stable orbits combined with a lack of understanding of how science would explain this, caused Newton to infer 'design' for planetary orbits.
Worse of course, the ID hypothesis does not only infer 'design' but provides no measures to show that its inference is more likely than 'we don't know', making the inference highly unreliable. And if we take Dembski's claim that if the design inference includes false positives, it would be useless, I am surprised why we are still talking about this.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 4:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to PvM
I am fast drawing to the conclusion that this discussion will never end. Not becuase one side is confused and the other is not. Not because one side understands science and the other does not. Scott Minnich, Michael Behe and Guillermo Gonzalez are all scientist. They promote ID and have been attacked. They understand the issues as well as their opponents. I have heard their opponents over and over try to donflate ID with creationism. I think this is deliberate. This shows a weakness. I guess it's true a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Unpopular ideas seldom get a fair hearing. Time will tell.
- Jim
September 15, 2008 5:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This is not about being unpopular
It's about being scientifically relevant. Look at Behe, what has he done for science in the last decade? His latest book "Edge of evolution" shows how ID can only make its claims when ignoring scientific progress. Guillermo Gonzalez failed to impress his tenure committee that he should be given tenure. They promote ID, they get people to respond, and in most cases they totally ignore the criticism. Look at how Behe is ignoring the devastating observations by Matzke in this forum for instance. Of course, Behe has no duty to respond but it shows how ID fails to be able to really present its case or defend itself against real criticism. That ID has its roots in Christianity is just an additional bonus to help understand why despite its scientific vacuity, ID is still attempting to introduce it under the guise of, what is the flavor of today?, oh yes, academic freedom.
You could perhaps move forward this discussion by explaining how ID explains any 'designed' system? What hypotheses relevant directly to design does it generate?
I have seen various attempts by ID proponents to make claims of 'research programs' based on ID but ID lacks a foundation for that as well, I'd argue.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 5:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.