Experts and users discuss intelligent design, evolution, religion in society, religion and science: The Ayn Rand Institute’s Anti-ID Arguments are False and/or Irrelevant
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
The Ayn Rand Institute’s Anti-ID Arguments are False and/or Irrelevant
- From Discovery Institute
By Discovery Institute - A Positive Vision of the Future
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Natural/supernatural designers
The statements that the designer need not be supernatural deserve to be flagged for some-head-scratching questions. There is nothing illogical in such conceptions, but I have to wonder what is being indicated: this opens the gray area of kind of gnostic demiurge or polytheistic divinity. Could conservative Christians be hosting such notions.
A far more likely candidate for resolving the confusion lies in considering that biological theory, eliminating teleological conceptions, is incomplete and leaves itself open to design arguments for that reason. Natural teleology as a conceptual extension to biology, as indicated, for example, by the philosopher Kant, would explain the design confusions that the ID group has created. Biochemcial systems are chock full of teleological subsystems, which are also appear as causal systems. For the distinction between G-design (supernatural) and N-design (a natural teleological process) see:
http://darwiniana.com/2008/09/10/n-design-g-design-from-world-history-and-the-eonic-effect /
- nemonemini September 13, 2008 3:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Boy oh boy
Just when you think you have seen and heard it all, the Landon's 'eonic effect' pops up again.
So what is the eonic effect?
--
A frequently asked question is, What is the eonic effect? The term simply refers to a basic set of three turning points or transitions visible in world history, the birth of civilization, the classical period, with its remarkable so-called ‘Axial Age’
--
Of course... How could we have missed such an obvious 'effect'...
Sigh
- PvM
September 13, 2008 6:36PM
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.
Oh boy, the eonic effect
Both sides in the Darwin debate are bluffers. The point of the eonic effect is that the ONLY closely observed instance of 'evolution' is that in history itself. The relationship of 'history' and 'evolution' is tricky, yet discoverable, and in the end an immense clarification.
The eonic effect provides a real glimpse of 'evolution' at a particular stage of history/culture. And it voids the claims for natural selection.
It also flunks the design argument.
The Old Testament is a record of one aspect of the eonic effect, the Axial Age, and that period/zone of history falls into place, without design arguments!
Check out, http://eonic-effect.net
May as well get to work on it. It's the only evolution your going to discover in this century.
- nemonemini September 14, 2008 9:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bluffers?
--
May as well get to work on it. It's the only evolution your going to discover in this century.
--
Ah the expected promissory note.
Thanks but no thanks, I have read about the 'eonic effect' and found it lacking in scientific relevance.
Compare this with the immense progress made by evolutionary science even in the last decade.
- PvM
September 14, 2008 10:15AM
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.
Darwinism can't explain man
Evolutionary science may have progressed but it has not explained the evolution of man, or history.
The presumption that biology explains the emergence of man is great.
It needs a new understanding
- nemonemini September 14, 2008 12:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Needs a new understanding?
--Landon
Evolutionary science may have progressed but it has not explained the evolution of man, or history.
--
Neither has the eonic effect really, which at best seems to be a descriptive approach to historical events. Nevertheless, all of this depends on what one means by the 'evolution of man'. Science has uncovered a vast amount of fossils and other evidence that show how man evolved form a common ancestor. Does this explain all the aspects of human evolution? I doubt it.
--Landon
The presumption that biology explains the emergence of man is great.
It needs a new understanding
--
Why?
- PvM
September 14, 2008 12:54PM
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.
Chance fallacy
--the Eonic website claims erroneously
The one thing Darwinists don’t want to find is such a non-random pattern, anywhere. The data for seeing such a pattern has reached critical mass only in our own times, and can be highlighted by simple inspection using careful periodization. The conclusion is inescapable: this structure demonstrates the existence of an evolutionary driver operating where least expected. There is nothing complex in the method. Throw a sine curve at world history. The results are direct, and show a degree of correlation we cannot ascribe to chance.
---
In fact, Darwinists are looking for non-random patterns and have found it, which is why evolutionary theory and the evidence are so exciting where the evolutionary drivers included such concepts as variation, inheritance and selection. Of course, we cannot ascribe it to chance, which is exactly what evolutionary theory suggests.
And yet the proponent of Eonic effect suggests that a 'new understanding' is needed. I agree, as far as the understanding of evolutionary theory is concerned.
- PvM
September 14, 2008 12:57PM
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.
More confusion about random
--Secrets of the genome, January 21, 2006 By John C. Landon "nemonemini"
"The work described in this book has led me to the conclusion that natural selection must work not just on each individual mutation, but also on the very mechanisms that generate genetic variation-as it does on all bio- logical functions. The research discussed in this book leads to the conclusion that mutations are not all accidents and that mutations are not always random. Our genomes, and those of other life forms, have evolved mechanisms that create different kinds of mutations in their DNA, and they reuse and adapt useful pieces of DNA, even to the point that there are genomic 'interchangeable parts.'
Biochemical mechanisms can arise that tend to focus genetic variation, resulting in "hot spots" of genetic change at certain places in the genome."
---
In a review of "Darwin In the Genome: Molecular Strategies in Biological Evolution" by Lynn Caporale
Indeed, to understand what science means by 'random' when it applies to evolutionary theory, one has to do more than claim that random must mean without pattern. Such a confusion, which could have laid to rest quickly, can cause one to hold to a flawed assumption that evolution is 'random', when all evolutionary theory (not necessarily Darwinism) observes that the source of variation is 'random' with respect to its immediate effects given an environment.
Of course, that evolutionary processes themselves can improve mechanisms of variations, or that variation comes in hot spots, is nothing new, let alone at odds with how science uses the term 'random' when it comes to evolution.
- PvM
September 14, 2008 1:12PM
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.
A glimpse of evolution
It is certainly true that the eonic effect has a descriptive aspect: before explaining evolution you need to know what it is, what it 'looks like', how its 'macro' factor can be detected. Darwinism never observes deep time, and simply throws an explanation in that direction, sight unseen. The eonic effect shows an example of evolution in action
- nemonemini September 14, 2008 2:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where Does Intelligent Design Creationism Publish Its "Science"?
The response by the Discovery Institute says that the "methodology for detecting design (which I discuss in my first opening statement) is entirely empirical and scientific." and "As William Dembski explains: "Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence."
Unfortunately, a review of the entire corpus of actual scientific journal articles reveals an inconvenient truth: The so-called empirical scientific truths of intelligent design creationism seem to be entirely missing.
A disinterested observor searching for signs of intelligence in the search for signs of intelligence would find statements such as this 2003 quote from Philip Johnson, one of the originators of the intelligent design movement, on a Christian radio talk show: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
And here's a 1996 quote from Philip Johnson: "This (intelligent design) isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion." This is as good as it gets, straight from their prophet's mouth.
And as Judge Jones ruled in 2005, "We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Judge Jones also stated: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the intelligent design policy."
Intelligent design creationism may have religious merit, but it certainly has utterly no scientific merit.
- Paul Burnett
September 13, 2008 3:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
Correct
--Paul
Unfortunately, a review of the entire corpus of actual scientific journal articles reveals an inconvenient truth: The so-called empirical scientific truths of intelligent design creationism seem to be entirely missing.
---
Of course, since ID makes no scientifically relevant positive predictions relevant to intelligent design, it is not surprising that the 'best' of ID is still ranking as mediocre in science. I'd love to discuss with some ID proponents what they consider to be ID's most impressive contribution to the cause.
- PvM
September 13, 2008 6:11PM
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.
Philosophy is more fundamental than Science
To sneer at AynRandInstitute and Ayn Rand's philosophy is to fail to address the growing primary reason why people are deciding "God" is not an explanation of anything.
I won't flesh out the arguments from philosophy here. But, if you care to know why "God" is not included in the growing philosophy of the present and the future, I point you to Rand and Leonard Peikoff for the details.
The view that there is nothing in existence that can give meaning to the anti-concept "supernatural" comes from several points in Objectivism.
The Primacy of Existence places all consciousness in a dependent position on reality, cannot be the creator of it.
The full acceptance of existence, as the place where you live and as the concept which names the nature of the place where you live renders invalid the notion that there is any alternative to it.
The law of identity makes notions like design, created order, creation, miracles, creation by speech (the Word) all meaningless. There's literally nothing which gives meaning to those notions, once you grasp that everything has an identity and behaves according to its nature.
Reason is the capacity for knowledge and the barrier past which any claims of supernatural revelation cannot pass. To claim that God told you somethng which reason cannot identify or validate means that you think you somehow received knowledge which your mind is not capable of getting.
Reason again is the instrument of proof and insists that, before an honest man will "believe" any idea, he will view and understand the proof for that idea. And, proof means showing how the idea is a logical conclusion drawn from evidence coming from the world in which we live. In all of world history and among the best thinkers of mankind, no proof of the existence of God or any other supernatural entity has been provided.
So, from the simple basis of the nature of reality and the inescapable nature of human knowledge-gaining (cognition), God simply fails to put in an appearance. There is no evidence to support such a supposed being.
Whether you are a (groundless) believer or a person of sincerity, devoted to reality and reason, you need to know where this conclusion about "God" comes from. So, you owe it to yourself to take up the study of Rand's Objectivism to find out. Because, it is the foundation for all persuasive thinking in the next century and forever after that.
- pbeaird
September 17, 2008 7:21PM
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.
No it's not.
You're lucky not enough people know or care enough about your religion to throw out opinions based on it presented as science, philosophy, logic, or fact on the spot. Claims that the world was created in exactly 6 days exactly as the Bible says it was have just as much credence as your religious argument. NONE! There is nothing persuasive about Objectivism, especially when it's disciples cite it as fact without any evidence other than, "Well Ayn Rand said so." Come back to me with arguments not based on Objectivism, and we'll talk. The sad part is, Ayn Rand seems like she was a very rational and logical person. It is a shame that her modern disciples have so perverted that image.
- richardsonkr
January 21, 2009 9:06PM
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.
Define "religion"
Hello Richard,
I admire your wealth in cash funds. That being the kinder way to explain you chasing my comments all over the Internet in order to add hateful and irrational comments about whatever I've written.
Your statements about Objectivism are without any meaning of any kind until you define the word "religion" which you apply to a philosophy of reason, not faith, of this world, not supernaturalism, of morality, not the sacrifice of a deity in order to save sinful mankind, of disbelief in God, not abject theism. If you want anyone, including yourself, to know what you are talking about, define your key terms.
Oh, and while you are at it, consult a reliable text on logic, on reasoning fallacies, on epistemology...because, if you think that Ayn Rand's Objectivism does not rest on proof, you have a gap in your knowledge of what constitutes proof and how one goes about establishing it.
Don't be so angry and hasty, Robert. You are not a sinner, don't behave like one.
- pbeaird
January 21, 2009 9:21PM
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.
The Discovery Institute is contradicting itself
Quote from this argument:
| This argument is false because ID doesn’t make claims
| about chains of designers because design detection can
| be made without investigating questions about the origin
| of the designer.
However, in the argument titled "ID Uses Scien. Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive Predictions", Casey Luskin writes:
| Scientists employing ID compare observations of how intelligent
| agents act when they design things to observations of phenomena
| whose origin is unknown. Human intelligence provides a large
| empirical dataset for studying the products of the action of intelligent
| agents.
In other words, ID does make claims about the designer. ID makes the claim that the designer is (like a) human.
Considering that humans aren't even close to making anything even remotely as complex as a human being, how can one look for human design in life? Would the designer not have to be nearly infinitely more complex than any of its creation? In other words, you either have no idea how to detect this mysterious designer's design, or you have to make groundless assertions about the creator (as you did when you claimed that human design can be used to find design in life - but how can we detect human design in life when humans have never designed life in the first place?).
(As a side note, does the Discovery Insitute itself not claim that a mere cell is more complex than anything we've ever created? Note that this is not really important to my argument here, but it's interesting to note.)
The dishonesty continues:
| Their first argument is false because in historical sciences like
| ID, causes must be sufficient to explain the observed data.
We have already established that ID is not a historical science because there is no data to use as a foundation of design detection. The best the Discovery Institute can come up with is a groundless assertion that human design is like the "design" of life, but this has clearly been shown to be false. In fact, human designs are always completely different from any life, although we have lately tried to learn from nature to improve our own technologies.
| Their argument thus imposes an arbitrary rule that
| scientists can never detect design if the designer is
| complex—leading to preposterous outcomes in fields
| such as archaeology, code-breaking, environmental
| science, or the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence
| (SETI) Project.
This is false. In the case of archaeology, code-breaking, and so on, we do have actual empirical data to use for comparison. Not so with life, which we do not know who "designed", if anyone. Unless, of course, the Discovery Institute wishes to make groundless assertions about the nature of a designer, which contradicts their mantra that we don't need to know anything about the designer to know his design!
As for the SETI project, they don't actually know what they are looking for. They don't even know if it exists or if they'll be able to find if it if exists. At least they are honest enough to admit that. The ID movement isn't, and keeps making up bogus arguments.
- WayOfTheDodo September 19, 2008 1:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"ID doesn’t make claims about chains of designers"
This is a reply to, "In other words, ID does make claims about the designer. ID makes the claim that the designer is (like a) human."
His quote is "ID doesn’t make claims about chains of designers" and not "ID doesn’t make claims about designers". The difference is "chains of".
- Screen Name
September 2, 2009 12:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The difference being?
What is the relevant difference? I can't see how "chain" or not makes a difference. The point is that he says that they don't make claims about the designer, but they do.
- WayOfTheDodo September 3, 2009 7:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
By way of comparison.
No ID does not claim the designer is human like, but since humans are the only known intelligence, that is the only thing they have to compare ID to.
- mike1948
September 3, 2009 3:37PM
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.
Contradictions and dishonesty, continued
| This argument is also false because it imposes an
| arbitrary and preposterous rule that designers of
| "biological complexity" can never be natural. The
| fact that humans engage in genetic engineering
| refutes their arbitrary rule.
Once again, the Discovery Institute asserts that the designer of all life must be human(-like). This means that they once again make assumptions about the designer, which they have previously claimed makes no difference.
| Their third argument is false because it is plain
| and obvious that biological complexity need not
| require a supernatural designer.
Here, it is seemingly claimed that the nature of the designer need not be known. However, as we know, in the "historical sciences", one looks for existing known patters. We know the capabilities of the designer. We know the nature of the designer. Thus, for ID to be remotely like the historical sciences, it must know something about the designer.
Just another fundamental contradiction in ID.
| ID isn’t focused on studying the designer, but rather studies
| natural objects to detect design
As has already been established, you cannot detect design without having data to compare it to. And to compare it to data, you must know the capabilities of the designer.
| Moreover, ID proponents have been very clear that
| their theory does not try to address religious questions
| about whether the designer is natural or supernatural.
As shown in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, Intelligent Design is just creationism with a new name, and with the "Goddunnit" parts carefully hidden to pretend that it's got nothing to do with religion.
However, as the conservative, Bush-appointed (on recommendation from creationist senator Rick Santorum) Judge Jones found, ID is indeed religious in nature.
| To elaborate, by focusing on the designer, The
| Ayn Rand Institute misrepresents ID
This is being repeated over and over, but it does not change the fact that the historical sciences rely on knowing the abilities of the designer. We know it's been designed because we can measure it against other data from the same designer which we know to be designed.
- WayOfTheDodo September 19, 2008 1:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Please clear this up:
Science is testable.
Suggest an experiment that would prove Intelligent Design.
- sharky
September 24, 2008 5:10PM
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.
An empty philosophy
If Intelligent Design says nothing about the supposed Designer, then of what value is it? If the Designer created life millions or billions of years ago, what was His purpose in doing so? What is/was the Designer like? Did the Designer give specific instructions to his creations, as most religions teach? The ID promoters delibrately leave such questions unanswered in their official pronouncements about ID. Why?
That's assuming that the objection above is to be taken at face value. I do not and think the Discovery Institute is just bull$#itting us. They avoid the questions about the Designer because of the church/state separation issue. That's just a cop-out. Science does not end with an inference of design, ever. If it did, Darwin himself would have not bothered to come up with his natural selection theory. You either go on to determine the nature of the Designer or you conclude that your preception of design was flawed because you cannot do the former.
Intelligent Design is not only scientifically meaningless, it is theologically worthless as well. If I were still a Christian, I'd scorn those hypocrites at the Discovery Institute just as much as I do now as an agnostic.
- Dale Husband
October 10, 2008 2:13PM
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.
"Informational Signature" is an invalid concept
Discovery Institute writes, "...by focusing on the designer, The Ayn Rand Institute misrepresents ID: ID studies natural objects to determine if they bear the informational signatures that reliably indicate design by an intelligent cause. ID doesn't study designers."
The "informational signatures?"
Only conscious beings produce signatures. And saying that a consciousness exists necessarily presupposes that existence exists. You can't have consciousness without first having existence.
Discovery's objection here reveals that he's claiming the primacy of consciousness over existence - a contradiction.
Paraphrasing Ayn Rand's statement on the primacy of existence: existence exists, and consciousness is the faculty of perceiving (not creating) existence.
To look for signatures is to look for a consciousness that came before/was apart from/was outside of/etc. -- existence.
Jargon like "informational signatures" does not a valid concept make.
- Peter M
December 2, 2008 11:48PM
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.
Huh?
"The "informational signatures?"
Only conscious beings produce signatures. And saying that a consciousness exists necessarily presupposes that existence exists. You can't have consciousness without first having existence."
So what? If consciousness and existence are the same thing what difference does it make?
"Discovery's objection here reveals that he's claiming the primacy of consciousness over existence - a contradiction."
Could've sworn that "existence" as used by the DI refers to everything (Life, Physics, Universe itself, etc) except the intellect behind them, nothing contradictory there.
"Paraphrasing Ayn Rand's statement on the primacy of existence: existence exists, and consciousness is the faculty of perceiving (not creating) existence."
If all this is just wordplay on the criteria for "existence" then I'm afraid I've missed your point. Are you trying to argue over which came first, existence or consciousness?
"To look for signatures is to look for a consciousness that came before/was apart from/was outside of/etc. -- existence."
OR came at the same time as existence, which would be perfectly consistent with the search for signatures.
"Jargon like "informational signatures" does not a valid concept make."
Wordplay on consciousness vs. existence does not a valid argument make.
- F2XL
December 3, 2008 6:35PM
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.
Further problems with Ayn Rand Institute's first objection
First, ID is being applied only to objects that have high levels of CSI. Since there is no data concerning the amount of CSI the designer has, then ID is not currently applicable to the designer. Perhaps the designer must have a designer, and perhaps not. Science cannot make this determination at this time.
Second, whenever scientists hypothesize that A causes B, they will inevitably have to search for the cause of A. Should this stop them from hypothesizing A as a cause of B? Science, like evolution , occurs one step at a time. After we test ID, if we find that it leads to successful predictions and never (or hardly ever) leads to failed predictions, then and only then should we worry about the cause of the designer. Reasoning otherwise puts an end to scientific inquiry. The Ayn Rand Institute is anti-science.
- ufcarazy
January 21, 2009 10:06AM
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.