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:
In order to better understand Intelligent Design, it is important to appreciate how it abuses and conflates terminologies. For instance, ID claims that science is unable to explain 'design' and yet it appeals to science being able to explain design as evidence that ID has content.
Let's look at the argument in more detail:
---
“In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role [in] the origin of the system.”
---
Now remember that complexity refers to our absence to understand how to explain something, and that the statement basically states that "when we do not understand something" and it is 'irreducible' then it must be designed. However, we do know that natural pathways to irreducibly complex systems exist, of course, since these pathways are natural, the complexity disappears. However, the same applies when we provide a design explanation.
In order for the design inference to be reliable, ID has to be able to show that there are no false positives. And yet we know that historically, people have erroneously assigned design and designers to thunder and lightning, disease, natural disasters, solar eclipses and so on, so the claim that design inferences are reliable is flawed. Now, the mere fact that design inferences are not reliable, does not mean that science cannot use design inferences reliably. But for that science assigns a plausible positive hypothesis which can compete with other explanations. For instance in criminology we look at means, motives and opportunities, combined with eye-witnesses, alibis and physical evidence to generate a plausible hypothesis which can establish "beyond reasonable doubt" the guilt or innocence.
These forms of design as known as regular design as opposed to rarefied design. In an excellent paper Wilkins et al explain the differences (1)
--
he second way that the inconsistency can be resolved is as we have already indicated, by recognizing a distinction between ordinary design and rarefied design. For those events where our background information includes information about how agents or processes produce events of high probability, we would assign those to the HP category and explain them with reference to regularity. This would preserve a place for a class of rarefied design in the Explanatory Filter, but Dembski's earlier arguments about design indicating agent causation because his Explanatory Filter captures our usual means of recognizing design would only apply to the class of ordinary design, not the desired rarefied design. It is only by the attempt to inconsistently treat agent causation as a privileged hypothesis that Dembski can (erroneously) claim that ordinary design and rarefied design share a node on the Explanatory Filter.
--
In other words, instances of rarefied design, since they cannot really compete with the "we don't know" explanation, cannot be assigned the category of 'design'.
Notice how ID manages by bait and switch to claim both that ID provides an alternative explanation to scientific explanations as well as that ID uses the same scientific approaches as science to make its case. Needless to say, it is trivial to point out the inherent contradiction and show that because of this conflation, ID attempts to claim that it uses similar approaches to science to infer design. However, even a cursory scrutiny of their claims quickly reveals that ID relies not on a scientific approach of providing positive explanations and hypothesis, but rather on elimination and since they refuse to present any way to constrain their designer and thus the design, they are unable to compete with our ignorance.
Needless to say, science has found that such simple mechanisms as regularity and chance can in fact increase information and complexity and create what is called in ID parlance "specified complexity" in the same manner as ID claims that 'designers' can create such complexity.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that ID refuses to admit that there exists a theory which outcompetes their preferred 'single designer' thesis, and shows that a hypothesis of "multiple designers" explains the data much better. The unwillingness and inability to address even the simple alternative, shows that ID is more concerned about its religious position than about science.
Ask yourself: What has ID done in a non trivial manner, that increases our scientific understanding in a positive manner? Nothing, in fact, it has attempted to downplay scientific knowledge, misrepresent scientific findings, to further its case. More on the latter part in a future contribution.
(1) Wilkins, John S, and Wesley R Elsberry. 2001. The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance. Biology and Philosophy 16 (November):711-724.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 9:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(5)
Side: No
How does science explain information in life versus Intelligent Design proponents? And why do ID proponents misrepresent science when describing for instance neo-Darwinism?
--
Casey Luskin writes:
Proponents of neo-Darwinism contend that the information in life arose via purposeless, blind, and unguided processes. ID proponents contend that the information in life arose via purposeful, intelligently guided processes. Both claims are scientifically testable using scientific methods employed by standard historical sciences.
--
While I agree with Casey that science provides testable mechanisms to explain information in life, I disagree strongly with Casey's representation of neo-Darwinism where he conflates theological concepts such as purpose and where he equivocates on 'guided' and 'blind'. Anyone familiar with evolutionary theory would quickly come to realize that evolutionary processes are not 'blind' or even 'unguided', in fact, the only aspect of evolutionary theory which comes close to this description is the concept of 'random' as used when describing mutations. And all random really means is 'random with respect to the effect in a particular environment', in other words, mutations do no arise in response to environmental pressures immediately beneficial to said environment.
Casey's suggestion that evolutionary processes are blind and unguided, ignore, as is quite common amongst Creationists, that evolutionary processes include "natural selection" where the environment both guides and where the outcome of the process is not 'blind' but rather leads to function.
In fact, it is trivial to realize that natural selection is very similar to 'intelligent selection' where in the former case, information is transferred from the environment into the genome (as science has clearly shown to be the case), where the latter one involves the guidance of an intelligence responsible for said increase.
So, now we have a situation where we know that both natural and intelligent processes can cause information to increase and we are left to establish which of the various explanations are the best. Since ID refuses to contribute any scientific explanation which positively identifies the processes, mechanisms etc, it remains unable to compete not just with evolutionary science but also with our ignorance "we don't know hypothesis".
ID claims that information is best explained by intelligence and yet it provides no explanations.
Weird eh?
- PvM September 9, 2008 10:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
I must say that PvM has a way with words. A few of those words were when he claims that Casey Luskin misrepresents neo-Darwinism because, claiming that “Anyone familiar with evolutionary theory would quickly come to realize that evolutionary processes are not 'blind' or even 'unguided', in fact, the only aspect of evolutionary theory which comes close to this description is the concept of 'random' as used when describing mutations.”
But if you read Casey’s posts, it seems like he is familiar with evolutionary theory because he documents where textbooks and leading evolutionary biologists have described evolution in this fashion. For example, Luskin writes:
“Even the widely-touted theistic evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller has claimed in five editions of his highly popular high school biology textbooks that the implication of evolution is that it works “without either plan or purpose” and is “random and undirected.”(22)”
Luskin also documents:
“A very popular college evolutionary biology textbook (which I used for one of my upper division evolutionary biology courses during my undergraduate studies) declares that "[b]y coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."(12)”
Additionally, Luskin observes that Francisco Ayala wrote in a top scientific journal:
“Similarly, in the prestigious scientific journal, Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, leading evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala celebrates that "Darwin’s greatest accomplishment” was to show that the origin of life’s complexity “can be explained as the result of a natural process--natural selection--without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent."(13) Just to make sure that his readers don’t try to invoke some kind of “God-guided” evolution, Ayala writes that "[i]n evolution, there is no entity or person who is selecting adaptive combinations.”(14)”
It seems to me that Luskin is just describing evolution how it has been described in leading biology textbooks and how leading evolutionary biologists have described it. You might not like how leading evolutionary biologists have described evolution, but this is how they have described it. Don’t fault Luskin for quoting these authorities. If you don’t like how they describe evolution, take it up with these authorities.
- taxibound2 September 10, 2008 11:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
--Taxibound2--
I must say that PvM has a way with words. A few of those words were when he claims that Casey Luskin misrepresents neo-Darwinism because, claiming that “Anyone familiar with evolutionary theory would quickly come to realize that evolutionary processes are not 'blind' or even 'unguided', in fact, the only aspect of evolutionary theory which comes close to this description is the concept of 'random' as used when describing mutations.”
--
But if you read Casey’s posts, it seems like he is familiar with evolutionary theory because he documents where textbooks and leading evolutionary biologists have described evolution in this fashion. For example, Luskin writes:
“Even the widely-touted theistic evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller has claimed in five editions of his highly popular high school biology textbooks that the implication of evolution is that it works “without either plan or purpose” and is “random and undirected.”(22)”
--
So in other words, Casey's ignorance is justifiable because he can find a textbook which fails to explain the concept correctly? Is that the full extent of your argument? In fact, are you aware that the author of the textbook accepted responsibility for the flawed definition and had it removed?
As to Ayala, I fail to see your point since Ayala correctly describes the historical past
--“Similarly, in the prestigious scientific journal, Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, leading evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala celebrates that "Darwin’s greatest accomplishment” was to show that the origin of life’s complexity “can be explained as the result of a natural process--natural selection--without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent."(13)--
Without the need to resort to a Creator is what good science is all about. We all know how simplistically easy it is to assign our fears and ignorance to 'God's will', imagine our ancestors who saw God's hand in such issues as thunder and lightning or the stability of orbits of planets (Isaac Newton).
You may of course use Luskin's arguments but I suggest that there is a risk involved, namely that his own writings expose a further level of unfamiliarity with evolutionary science.
I am here to help you understand the 'rest of the story'
- PvM September 10, 2008 11:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
From Mr. Luskin's argument:
"Design theorists *hypothesize* that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.... When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they *conclude* that such structures were designed." (*emphasis* added)
So ID first hypothesizes that CSI implies design, and then concludes that the CSI in biology implies design. But this is nothing but a restatement of the hypothesis! What ID forgets to do is to confirm their hypothesis, and somehow empirically support the claim that CSI necessarily implies conscious planning. ID never even tries to do this.
Instead, ID attempts to make an induction from a single data point, arguing that since human beings can build complex machines and humans are conscious, then everything which can build complex machines must be conscious. But one data point is not sufficient to induce the characteristics of all possible "intelligent agents", and so there is no justification for suggesting the cause of biological complexity (whatever it might have been) was a conscious entity.
One could, by the exact same reasoning, argue that everything which can build complex machines must have large, complex, biological brains. But this would mean ID can't account for the *origin* of biological complexity after all.
So ID does not use the scientific method to infer anything at all. It merely assumes that all CSI must come from conscious minds because we humans can create it too, which is a perfectly unscientific argument.
- aiguy September 12, 2008 10:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(6)
Side: No
I have yet to read a single sentence from any ID proponent that provides "testable predictions about the type of informational properties we expect to find in nature if an intelligent agent were at work in designing a natural object." Over and over this or similar verbiage is used to defend ID, but ID never produces any predictions. This isn't a theory, this is an untested hypothesis.
"Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI."
Explicitly and accurately defining CSI in such a manner that a specific prediction can be made would be a good first step. For instance, no where do I find in any ID writing anything that I can use to identify CSI. Is CSI DNA? Is CSI morphology? Is CSI hair color or eye color? Is CSI behavior? How would I know CSI when I see it? Since I can't pin down exactly what CSI is, I can't make any predictions about it, or with it.
"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 the experience of human beings, other human beings are the only creatures we have ever demonstrably seen design anything. (Meaning we can prove that the designed thing was designed) ID STARTS from a biased position. How often has the design hypothesis, caused by this human bias to detect agents, failed when used to explain natural phenomena? Ask any child in Sunday school what thunder is, and you will hear a failed design hypothesis: "the angels are bowling."
"Mathematician and philosopher William Dembski observes that "the principal characteristic of intelligent agency is directed contingency, or what we call choice."(5) When "an intelligent agent acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities" to create some complex and specified event. Dembski calls ID "a theory of information" where "information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation." ID thus seeks to find in nature the types of information which are known to be produced by intelligent agents, and reliably indicate the prior action of intelligence."
What information is 'known to be produced by intelligent agents, and reliably indicate the prior action of intelligence?' Again, define explicitly what CSI is.
"Irreducible complexity is a form of specified complexity, which exists in systems composed of "several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Because natural selection only preserves structures that confer a functional advantage to an organism, it is argued that such systems would be unlikely to evolve through a Darwinian process because there exists no evolutionary pathway wherein they could remain functional during each small evolutionary step."
Every time I have read an example of irreducible complexity put forth by ID proponents, it has taken literally seconds for me to do enough research to discover that someone has already either
a) performed the scientific research to explain, using evolutionary science, the rise of said example from primitive and simple beginnings to the 'irreducibly complex' structure found in nature, or
b) is currently DOING the scientific research, and the initial results look like they will show an evolutionary pathway for said example.
"ID is a historical science, meaning it employs the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that the present is the key to the past. ID investigations thus begin with observations about how intelligent agents operate and then proceed to convert those observations into positive predictions of what scientists should find in nature if intelligent design was involved in the origin of a given natural object."
Ok, fair enough. What are the 'positive predictions' made by ID?
"Specifically, the theory predicts that we will find large amounts of specified complexity in natural objects."
Oh, there they are. ID predicts that complex things are complex. Does ID offer anything MORE specific?
"Intelligent design has scientific merit because it is an empirically based argument that uses well-accepted scientific methods of historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity which we understand, from present-day observations, are derived from intelligent causes."
And it does so without explicit definitions of terms used in it's arguments, specific predictions, experiments that have validated it's predictions, or any other kind of evidence that is useful or relevant when evaluating it's truth claims.
When held to the standards of proof required for all other scientific theories, ID fails.
- PStryder September 15, 2008 10:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: No
--When held to the standards of proof required for all other scientific theories, ID fails.--
Science does not deal in proof but rather the ability to withstand attempts to disprove. As such evolutionary theory has done quite well.
- PvM September 15, 2008 9:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I grant your point sir.
- PStryder September 16, 2008 10:01AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I appreciate your contributions as they provide an independent view into why so many have come to accept the scientific vacuity of ID
- PvM September 16, 2008 11:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Casey Luskin writes:
"Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI"
How high is "high" ? Just what exactly are you measuring here? What are the units? At what value does something go from not-designed to designed? Why? What objects have you measured and what was their CSI ? What's the CSI of the following objects:
A dog?
A biscuit ?
An ecosystem?
A virus?
A clock?
A sculpture?
- phoenix September 17, 2008 1:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Quote:
| Intelligent design (ID) has scientific merit because it uses the scientific methods
| commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of
| the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not
| an undirected process such as natural selection.
There are two problem with this claim:
1) The other historical sciences look for known patterns. They use known data to cross-reference their finds. Thus, the comparison fails.
2) Natural selection is not undirected. This is a pretty fundamental part of Evolution. I am surprised that someone as strongly opposed to Evolution has failed to grasp even one of its most fundamental concepts.
| Proponents of neo-Darwinism contend that the information in life
| arose via purposeless, blind, and unguided processes.
Here, the false claim that Evolution (Natural Selection) is "blind" is repeated. The previous claim to this effect was not a mere mistake, but rather reveals a pretty huge hole in the author's understanding of Evolution.
| 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.
An interesting claim. Let's break it down:
1) How do you know that the alleged designer was human, or had the capabilities of a human? What research is there to support your assertion?
2) Humans have so far failed to create artificial intelligence, much less life that acts intelligently and can come up with its own design. The designs we have come up with so far are far from similar to our own brain. Computers are extremely good at calculations, but extremely poor at things our brain is good at.
3) By claiming that you are using a specific data set to look for design, are you not admitting that you must know the identity or ability of the intelligent agent which allegedly designed life? This seems contrary to the claim from Intelligent Design advocates that we need not know the abilities of the designer to detect design.
You now seem to be in a situation where you are contradicting yourself, which means that you have to clarify:
Either you must admit that your "design detection" is nothing like the historical sciences since you don't know what to look for, or you must admit that you are either making unscientific assumptions about the designer or you must claim to know the designer's identity/abilities.
| According to ID theorists, irreducible complexity thus is an
| informational pattern which may be taken as a reliable indicator
| of ID because “[i]n all irreducibly complex systems in which
| the cause of the system is known by experience or observation,
| intelligent design or engineering played a role [in] the origin of
| the system.”
In other words, ID is an argument from ignorance: "We don't know, therefore design."
| ID is a historical science, meaning it employs the principle
| of uniformitarianism, which holds that the present is the key
| to the past.
Are you saying that humans designed all life?
- WayOfTheDodo September 18, 2008 1:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
I am curious about one thing - Luskin states:
"ID investigations thus begin with observations about how intelligent agents operate and then proceed to convert those observations into positive predictions of what scientists should find in nature if intelligent design was involved in the origin of a given natural object."
He justifies this assertion with this:
"Specifically, the theory predicts that we will find large amounts of specified complexity in natural objects [after an exposition on an analogy employed by theologian/philosopher Meyer)...
As Meyer explains, “by invoking design to explain the origin of new biological information, contemporary design theorists are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence. Instead, they are positing an entity possessing precisely the attributes and causal powers that the phenomenon in question requires as a condition of its production and explanation.”(18) "
In other words - Meyer is making an argument via analogy - made with lots of buzzwords and unnecessarily verbose prose.
If that is why ID is scientific, and if that is an example of a "prediction" that has been "tested", then I am afraid that ID is utterly worthless, for it consists of:
1. Construct an analogy
DNA is sort of like languiage, it is a code - why, we even call it th egenetic code
2. Make a syllogism employing the sketchy analogy -
Humans are complex.
Humans make language/codes.
DNA is like a language/code.
Therefore, DNA was made by a complex being like a human
3. Manipulate syllogism so as to appear to be an hypothesis -
DNA, being coded information, must have been made by complex intelligent agents, since we know that other complex intelligent agents, us, make codes/languages
4. Conclude what was assumed in step 1 and call it a tested and confirmed prediction -
ID predicted that DNA would be the product of an intelligent agent because it contains coded informaiton.
We know that coded inforaiton comes from intelligent agents.
Therefore, DNA was made by an intelligent agent.
Therefore, DNA was designed.
Brilliant.
- slpage September 19, 2008 8:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
From Wikipedia, the Scientific Method!
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest
So you're telling me that a procedure that starts with 3, moves to 2, pretends to have done 4, combines 5 and 6, and never ever touches on 6 or 8 or 1 is "scientific?"
- sharky September 24, 2008 3:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
"Specifically, the theory predicts that we will find large amounts of specified complexity in natural objects."
If that "prediction" really meant anything, then the "theory" might actually be a theory. But since "specified complexity" can never be properly defined, the "prediction" is meaningless and there is no theory. And since there is no theory, it's not science and all the other silly claims of the "intelligent design" propagandists are irrelevant.
"Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.(20)"
Then reference 20:
20. For More on CSI Tests:
These kinds of tests were reported by pro-ID molecular biologist Doug Axe in Douglas D. Axe, "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol 301:585-595 (2000); Douglas D. Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology, 1-21 (2004).
One reply to the 2004 paper ("Needless to say, the grand pronouncements being made by the ID camp are not warranted."):
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html
The 2004 Axe paper presents a claim that random mutations of a particular enzyme are likely to produce an enzyme with much reduced activity. In essence, it is a claim that evolution could not possibly work properly. But, of course, the critics say that the study is flawed.
"Intelligent design has scientific merit because it is an empirically based argument that uses well-accepted scientific methods of historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity which we understand, from present-day observations, are derived from intelligent causes."
Well, it would if it did, but since it doesn't, ...
- onein6billion October 7, 2008 10:22AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I am an experimental scientist. The notion of intelligent design directly impacts my areas of study. However, unlike scientific theories, ID does not make any predictions that I can attempt to test. There are no working hypotheses that might enrich my thinking on the subject. No specific information that can help me predict the interaction energies of the molecules I study. I can either believe it, or not - either way nothing much changes. Evolution raises questions and makes many predictions, some of them I can test and others are longer term, which I hope to see tested during my life. If ID offered me anything I could actually evaluate experimentally, just hinted at some new interesting avenue of research, I would be immediately interested.
Scientists tend to pragmatic about big ideas - does it help me explore what I am most interested in? ID is useless to me as a scientist, so I don't bother with it in the lab. To be honest, Cosmology isn't much help to me either, but I can see that they are clearly making hypotheses and working to disprove them. They might uncover something more that I can use - I am certainly grateful for quantum mechanics.
ID is an interesting subject for late-night discussions after a party - like philosophy, comparative religion, politics, and sports history. All good stuff! Not science.
- Adam Hammond December 3, 2008 7:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"I am an experimental scientist. The notion of intelligent design directly impacts my areas of study."
Seriously? Details please. Besides....
http://redwing.hutman.net /~mreed/warriorshtm/blowhard.htm
"However, unlike scientific theories, ID does not make any predictions that I can attempt to test. There are no working hypotheses that might enrich my thinking on the subject. No specific information that can help me predict the interaction energies of the molecules I study. I can either believe it, or not - either way nothing much changes."
For a good example of the research and predictions made by ID, I suggest you visit this site...
http://biologicinstitute.org /
"Evolution raises questions and makes many predictions, some of them I can test and others are longer term, which I hope to see tested during my life. If ID offered me anything I could actually evaluate experimentally, just hinted at some new interesting avenue of research, I would be immediately interested."
Evolution affects your study of energies within molecules??? Love to hear how that methodology works.
Speaking of research avenues and ID...
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-02-26T10_59_13-08_00
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-01-31T13_18_26-08_00
"Scientists tend to pragmatic about big ideas - does it help me explore what I am most interested in? ID is useless to me as a scientist, so I don't bother with it in the lab."
That would pretty much apply to anything else outside of molecular physics. Including....
"Cosmology isn't much help to me either, but I can see that they are clearly making hypotheses and working to disprove them. They might uncover something more that I can use - I am certainly grateful for quantum mechanics."
I guess ID fits just fine with cosmology in that case.
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-03-21T16_04_16-07_00
"ID is an interesting subject for late-night discussions after a party - like philosophy, comparative religion, politics, and sports history."
So it can be a good discussion topic. At least we agree on something.
"All good stuff! Not science."
Well, you're half right.
- F2XL December 11, 2008 5:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I only need one sentence to reply to this: Can the existence of a designer be verified by the scientific method? Oh it can't? Oh darn.
- ikenovak March 26, 2009 10:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/id-does-not-address-religious-claims-about-the-supernatural
A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies natural objects to determine if they bear the tell-tale signs that they were designed by an intelligent cause.
Many critics of ID mistakenly believe that the theory is focused upon studying the designer, alleging that it specifically invokes supernatural forces or a deity. But ID is not focused on studying the actual intelligent cause responsible for life. Instead, ID studies objects in nature, attempting to determine if natural objects bear an informational signature indicating that an intelligent cause was involved in their origin.
- Screen Name April 8, 2009 1:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies natural objects to determine if they bear the tell-tale signs that they were designed by an intelligent cause."
And outside of action from a designer, how can the existence of an "intelligent cause" actually result in any physical change?
It can't. Whoops, your "argument" is showing cracks.
Uh oh, you now have a bigger problem...
First you claim
"A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies natural objects to determine if they bear the tell-tale signs that they were designed by an intelligent cause."
Then you claim
"But ID is not focused on studying the actual intelligent cause responsible for life."
So, you say it's about studying the intelligent cause, then you say it isn't, and we're supposed ot take you seriously?
ID is nonsense, and it's so far from science that claiming it follows scientific method immediately invalidates one's opinion.
- Blappo May 6, 2009 8:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
"A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies natural objects to determine if they bear the tell-tale signs that they were designed by an intelligent cause." does not say "A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies an intelligent cause."
- Screen Name May 25, 2009 7:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Casey Luskin knows how to use impressive multi-syllabic words to suggest that he's intelligent. By gosh, he almost sounds like a scientist when he says that "The form of information which reliably indicates design is generally called 'specified complexity' or 'complex and specified information,' " whatever the hell that means. Apparently, all it means is that if a process with many components (therefore "complex") behaves so as to head coherently in a single direction (therefore "specified"), then it must be the result of intelligent design . OK, then try this one.
Get a hundred people to each throw a handfull of sand, perhaps a thousand grains per handfull (that's "complex"), at a wall. Watch to see what happens. If all of the 100,000 grains reverse direction when they hit the wall and then curve downward and end up on the floor (that's "specified"), with absolutely no communication among them, then surely they must have been guided by an intelligent designer.
Ah, but Mr. Luskin would object that the analogy is irrelevant, because while there was some random component to the movement of the various grains of sand, in the final analysis they were all subject to the overriding influence of gravity, and that's why they moved in a similar way and ended up on the floor. That's true. And in the same way, the various organisms and their various organs have shown significant randomness throughout their evolution, but in the final analysis, they were all subject to the overriding influence of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. The least fit died; the most fit survived and contributed their genes to the next generation.
The grains of sand all ended up on the floor without any conscious intention of going there, just because they were all influenced by gravity. In the same way, all those organisms kept on improving their fitness without any intention on anyone's part, just because those who were most fit survived and reproduced while the least fit died, as any reasonable person would expect. What's so mysterious about that? Would you expect anything different? Do you need to hypothesize a grandfatherly old codger in the sky who manipulated every gene in every organism? Get real.
- Fearless Theorist September 6, 2009 1:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
ALL human design (and resulting construction) starts with what exists: a designer and things (entities). Human design is impossible without the designer understanding something about the existents he's designing with else he's not designing. At minimum he's juxtoposing entities at a certain time and place, in a certain orientation, which, itself is a form of design requiring human thought, a human able to act, and the ability to separate those entities from others by distinguishing their fixed attributes (order) from those of other existing entities.
ID trys to switch the argument from design with existents---a common human activity, to a non-existing designer that designs and constructs something from nothing. The design argument is false because of this bait-and-switch as noted by other commenter.
ID makes the common mistake of seeing what order and assuming that means it must have been designed. But, as I've shown, design requires order to prexist in the designer and the entities the designer designs with. Yes, new order is the result of the design, but that's how we distinguish what was designed or not. Not whether it has order, but whether it's possible for a human to have created it---designed and construct it.
- Stan101 September 24, 2009 9:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Theories are not supported by finding confirming evidence only. They are largely supported by consistently failing to find disconfirming evidence. Conversely, they are refuted by consistently finding disconfirming evidence. Confirming or disconfirming evidence is determined by making predictions. On the condition that the predictions logically follow from the explanation the theory provides, failed predictions are disconfirming evidence and successful predictions are confirming evidence. Although it is clear that ID has led to some successful predictions, the best way to test ID is ultimately to derive predictions that logically follow from the explanation and never (or hardly ever) make failed predictions.
Those opposed to ID must use ID and generate failed predictions even when the predictions logically follow from the explanation. Predictions that do not logically follow from the explanation will not be a test of ID. For example, stating "If there is design in nature, then nature will be perfect" contains a prediction that does not logically follow from the explanation. This is because we have a wealth of experiences with designed objects, none of which are "perfect". Another example of an illogical prediction is "If the world is designed, then there should be no pain and suffering". This is because we have experiences of designed things that cause great pain and suffering.
I would like to see real scientists do real tests of ID.
- ufcarazy January 20, 2009 9:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
ufcarazy> "Although it is clear that ID has led to some successful predictions"
Really? What predictions has ID made? And, along those lines, how exactly would ID be falsifiable? Without valid answers to these two questions, it does not even begin to qualify as science .
- The Dark Ride August 30, 2009 6:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
- Features that appear vestigial and functionless actually serve a function (eg., appendix, coccyx)
- "Junk" DNA does, in fact, have a function.
- The alteration of an organism will not always be slow and gradual, or step-by-step.
- That which determines the fundamental features of an organism will be logical and ordered (eg. DNA), as opposed to random.
- There is no explanation invoking randomness or chance that can explain specified complexity.
ID would be falsifiable by testing its predictions. Some scientists have already claimed that ID has been falsified and adequately refuted, such as Ken Miller. Some non-scientist evolutionists believe that the ability to produce a mousetrap with fewer parts falsifies intelligent design . Seemingly every evolutionist believes that imperfection falsifies intelligent design. There is also a paper published in Science (1) that claims that a study by Bridgham and a study by Lenski “solidly refute all parts of the intelligent design argument”. Unsurprisingly the very next sentence is contradictory: “Those ‘alternate’ ideas, unlike the hypotheses investigated in these papers, remain thoroughly untested."
(1) Adami, C. (2006). Reducible Complexity. Science, 312 (5770), 61-63.
- ufcarazy September 1, 2009 1:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"- Features that appear vestigial and functionless actually serve a function (eg., appendix, coccyx)"
So what, using intelligent design , is the purpose of the appendix?
"- "Junk" DNA does, in fact, have a function."
ID only says that all DNA has to have a purpose, it does not predict what that purpose is or describe a mechanism for how that part of the DNA strand came to be.
"- The alteration of an organism will not always be slow and gradual, or step-by-step."
Where does evolutionary theory say that it will be slow or gradual? Evolution has been observed to act very quickly, sometimes over the course of decades.
"- That which determines the fundamental features of an organism will be logical and ordered (eg. DNA), as opposed to random."
The Theory of Evolution says the same thing... features are not random, they are 'built' on features already present in an organism (A fish cannot give birth to a bird).
"- There is no explanation invoking randomness or chance that can explain specified complexity."
Specified complexity? Can you qualify that further?
"ID would be falsifiable by testing its predictions. Some scientists have already claimed that ID has been falsified and adequately refuted, such as Ken Miller."
Like the bacteria flagellum... which was claimed to be 'irreducibly complex' but has since been demonstrated to be otherwise.
"There is also a paper published in Science (1) that claims that a study by Bridgham and a study by Lenski “solidly refute all parts of the intelligent design argument”."
You mean the Lenski long term evolution experiment? Where E.Coli bacteria underwent a significant change (gaining the ability to use Citric Acid as a food source) over the span of twenty years? That experiment was a very good example of how a species can change in the presence of environmental pressures... without genetic manipulation from a 'designer'
"Unsurprisingly the very next sentence is contradictory: “Those ‘alternate’ ideas, unlike the hypotheses investigated in these papers, remain thoroughly untested.""
How so? Can you show one recorded demonstration of intelligent design in action? One scientific study that would show the manipulation of a designer?
- MrBook September 1, 2009 7:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
“So what, using intelligent design , is the purpose of the appendix?”
ID simply predicted that the appendix would have a function. The degree of specificity in our predictions concerning what an intelligence will or will not do is limited due to intelligent agents having freedom in their creation. For example, we can predict that Tom Cruise’s next movie will be an action flick, but we cannot predict the plot of the movie before he agrees to a part.
“Where does evolutionary theory say that it will be slow or gradual? Evolution has been observed to act very quickly, sometimes over the course of decades.”
It is true that evolution ( change over time) has been observed to act quickly, but the theory of evolution has from day one predicted that this change has always occurred step-by-step. The first time this prediction was made using the theory of evolution was in the Origin of Species. However, the Cambrian Explosion demonstrated this prediction to be false even before random natural processes wrote the Origin of Species.
“Specified complexity? Can you qualify that further?”
Specified complexity describes any sort of pattern. Some patterns are specific but not complex (eg., gtgtgtgtg). Some patterns are complex but not specific (eg., ctaagtcg). Some patterns are both specific and complex (eg., gattaca).
“Like the bacteria flagellum...”
Exactly. Ken Miller has claimed to have tested a supposedly untestable claim, a claim that is supposedly religious and has nothing to do with science .
“You mean the Lenski long term evolution experiment?...”
The Lenski study did not show e. coli changing into a different species of bacteria via undirected processes. The bacteria began as e. coli and ended as e. coli. Even if e. coli did change into a different species, the study would not justify inferring that all life changes into new species via non-intelligent processes.
Concerning the paper published in Science, the author claimed that ID is untestable immediately after claiming that it had been tested and refuted. This contradiction was ignored by the reviewers and editors of the journal.
“Can you show one recorded demonstration of intelligent design in action? One scientific study that would show the manipulation of a designer?”
I could remind you of many examples of homo sapiens intelligently altering organisms, but I cannot show you a non-homo sapien live and in-person designing anything. Intelligent Design is inferred from the evidence, much like the intelligent design of pyramids is inferred from the evidence even though no one can actually show me Egyptians building them thousands of years ago. Unobserved entities are allowed in science, such as dark matter/ energy .
- ufcarazy September 1, 2009 10:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"ID simply predicted that the appendix would have a function. The degree of specificity in our predictions concerning what an intelligence will or will not do is limited due to intelligent agents having freedom in their creation. For example, we can predict that Tom Cruise’s next movie will be an action flick, but we cannot predict the plot of the movie before he agrees to a part."
If it cannot make predictions then it is not a viable theory. Remember that the current research into the use of the appendix was done using evolutionary models, not design models.
"t is true that evolution ( change over time) has been observed to act quickly, but the theory of evolution has from day one predicted that this change has always occurred step-by-step."
When evidence was produced to the contrary, that evolution can occur suddenly, the theory was adjusted to reflect that information. In the Modern Synthesis theory it is recognized that significant changes can occur within the span of a few generations.
"The first time this prediction was made using the theory of evolution was in the Origin of Species."
The Origin of the Species is a historical document... there was much that Darwin did not know at that time that we now know, and his original theory has since been supplanted by more modern versions of his theory.
"However, the Cambrian Explosion demonstrated this prediction to be false even before random natural processes wrote the Origin of Species."
I'm not quite sure I follow you... Charles Darwin would not have been aware of the Cambrian explosion, so there is no way he could have included it.
As to the 'Cambrian Explosion'... it took place over the span of ~10 million years, hardly a sudden change.
"Specified complexity describes any sort of pattern. Some patterns are specific but not complex (eg., gtgtgtgtg). Some patterns are complex but not specific (eg., ctaagtcg). Some patterns are both specific and complex (eg., gattaca)."
That is still not very descriptive... can you demonstrate that the sequence gtgtgtg is less likely to occur via random chance then ctaagtcg? Assuming a purely random system (each bit selected randomly) they would have an identical chance of occurring.
"Exactly. Ken Miller has claimed to have tested a supposedly untestable claim, a claim that is supposedly religious and has nothing to do with science ."
It was put forth that the flagellum was irreducibly complex, this was shown to be false (a simple change led to a structure that was different but still functional).
"The Lenski study did not show e. coli changing into a different species of bacteria via undirected processes. The bacteria began as e. coli and ended as e. coli. "
Yet it demonstrated a radical change over the comparatively short span of twenty years.
"Even if e. coli did change into a different species, the study would not justify inferring that all life changes into new species via non-intelligent processes."
One study would not be enough... but when combined with the body of evidence for Evolution it is a very powerful demonstration of the change.
"Concerning the paper published in Science, the author claimed that ID is untestable immediately after claiming that it had been tested and refuted. This contradiction was ignored by the reviewers and editors of the journal."
The experiment was not testing ID, it was testing Evolution... can you describe an experiment similar to the Lenski experiment that could be used to test ID?
"I could remind you of many examples of homo sapiens intelligently altering organisms, but I cannot show you a non-homo sapien live and in-person designing anything."
Why not? What experiment could be performed to show the action of a designer?
"Intelligent Design is inferred from the evidence, much like the intelligent design of pyramids is inferred from the evidence even though no one can actually show me Egyptians building them thousands of years ago."
There is a massive amount of evidence showing that the Egyptians built the pyramids. There is their own records, the carvings on the structure itself, known mechanisms by which the pyramid could be built... is there a similar body of evidence for id?
"Unobserved entities are allowed in science, such as dark matter/ energy ."
Dark matter is observed through its interaction with matter. Dark energy is still rather theoretical in nature, though the universe is expanding at an increasing rate there is no described mechanism for its action.
- MrBook September 2, 2009 6:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"If it cannot make predictions then it is not a viable theory. Remember that the current research into the use of the appendix was done using evolutionary models, not design models."
ID did make a prediction, and the prediction was accurate. Since the appendix was once used as evidence for evolutionary theory ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html ), I am skeptical that evolutionary theory also found a function for the appendix. Any theory that predicts both A and Not A is no theory at all. So, it seems as though evolutionary theory's ability to predict both function of the appendix and non-function makes it not a theory, but merely a set of observations which themselves need explaining by a genuine scientific theory. Oooh, I know one!!
"When evidence was produced to the contrary, that evolution can occur suddenly, the theory was adjusted to reflect that information."
I agree that theories can be revised. Evolutionary theory needed to be revised because it was wrong, but ID need not be revised because it never made that false prediction. ID predicts that change occurs at different rates. However, a theory can be revised so much that it really isn't a theory anymore but simply a set of observations. Natural selection can explain slow change, but how can it explain the Cambrian Explosion? It is not enough for evolutionary theory to simply admit that this explosion occurred, but evolutionists must explain how random mutation and natural selection can produce this event. In other words, a theory that revises it's prediction must also revise it's explanation, but the explanation offered by evolutionary theory has not been revised. What makes me skeptical that evolutionary theory can be falsified is that evolutionists will simply revise the observational aspects of the theory whenever it is contradicted by evidence and then claim that evolutionary theory can explain that evidence when, in fact, in cannot. Convince me that the theory of evolution is falsifiable (I will play devil's advocate and argue that your examples don't refute the theory).
- ufcarazy September 2, 2009 10:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"there was much that Darwin did not know at that time that we now know, and his original theory has since been supplanted by more modern versions of his theory."
First, don't make a darwin -of-the-gaps argument. Intelligent causation has no role in science . Second, if conflicting evidence does not refute evolutionary theory, then neither does it refute ID. Why can't ID simply be revised rather than abandoned if there is ever conflicting evidence?
"Charles Darwin would not have been aware of the Cambrian explosion."
There is no evidence that such a being existed. However, the Origin of Species does talk about the Cambrian Explosion as problematic. "The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” - p. 344; "The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” -p. 351.
"can you demonstrate that the sequence gtgtgtg is less likely to occur via random chance then ctaagtcg?"
I never stated that gtgtgtg was less likely to occur than ctaagtcg. Since it contains only two letters instead of 4 it would actually be more likely to occur, but that's not the point. What's-his-face asked me to explain what is meant by specified complexity and that is what I did.
"It was put forth that the flagellum was irreducibly complex, this was shown to be false"
An untestable claim cannot be shown to be false.
- ufcarazy September 2, 2009 10:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Yet it demonstrated a radical change over the comparatively short span of twenty years."
Time is not as relevant in evolutionary theory as is the number of generations that reproduce. Over the span of 20 years Lenski attempted to evolve 40,000 generations of e. coli, which is the equivalent of 1.2 million years for humans (e. coli can create 6.64 generations per day, the equivalent of 166 years for humans). Essentially then, the e. coli had 1.2 million years to change into a new species via natural selection and random mutation. Evolutionary theory claims that the past 1.2 million years of our history has included not just one but at least three examples of speciation via random mutation and natural selection. The e. coli did not undergo any speciation even though it is a much simpler organism. Lenski's study failed to find support for evolutionary theory. It did find support for change over time, but change over time is something that no ID theorist denies.
"can you describe an experiment similar to the Lenski experiment that could be used to test ID?"
Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer is the best source I know that you could turn to for an answer.
"What experiment could be performed to show the action of a designer?"
An analysis of the coded language within DNA, as well as any examination of irreducibly complex systems in an organism. It is not the scientific community's belief that we must see a designer designing in order to infer design. Otherwise, you and I would have no idea if Lenski ever designed his experiment since we never actually observed him doing so.
- ufcarazy September 2, 2009 10:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
“So what, using intelligent design , is the purpose of the appendix?”
ID simply predicted that the appendix would have a function. The degree of specificity in our predictions concerning what an intelligence will or will not do is limited due to intelligent agents having freedom in their creation. For example, we can predict that Tom Cruise’s next movie will be an action flick, but we cannot predict the plot of the movie before he agrees to a part.
“Where does evolutionary theory say that it will be slow or gradual? Evolution has been observed to act very quickly, sometimes over the course of decades.”
It is true that evolution ( change over time) has been observed to act quickly, but the theory of evolution has from day one predicted that this change has always occurred step-by-step. The first time this prediction was made using the theory of evolution was in the Origin of Species. However, the Cambrian Explosion demonstrated this prediction to be false even before random natural processes wrote the Origin of Species.
“Specified complexity? Can you qualify that further?”
Specified complexity describes any sort of pattern. Some patterns are specific but not complex (eg., gtgtgtgtg). Some patterns are complex but not specific (eg., ctaagtcg). Some patterns are both specific and complex (eg., gattaca).
“Like the bacteria flagellum...”
Exactly. Ken Miller has claimed to have tested a supposedly untestable claim, a claim that is supposedly religious and has nothing to do with science .
“You mean the Lenski long term evolution experiment?...”
The Lenski study did not show e. coli changing into a different species of bacteria. They began as e. coli and ended as e. coli. Even if e. coli did change into a different species, the study would not justify inferring that all life changes into new species via non-intelligent processes.
Concerning the paper published in Science, the author claimed that ID is untestable immediately after claiming that it had been tested and refuted. This contradiction was ignored by the reviewers and editor of the journal.
“Can you show one recorded demonstration of intelligent design in action? One scientific study that would show the manipulation of a designer?”
I could remind you of many examples of homo sapiens intelligently altering organisms, but I cannot show you a non-homo sapien live and in-person designing anything. Intelligent Design is inferred from the evidence, much like the intelligent design of pyramids is inferred from the evidence even though no one can actually show me Egyptians building them thousands of years ago. Unobserved entities are allowed in science, such as dark matter/ energy .
- ufcarazy September 1, 2009 10:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Do you Know that there is a God? You're 100% on this?
- ttut21 September 2, 2009 1:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I am confident there is a God.
- ufcarazy September 2, 2009 10:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"But why are questions about the “identity or nature” of something religious questions?"
"The DI’s writer" saying "that ID “limits its claims to what can be learned from the empirical data, meaning that it does not try to address religious questions about the identity or nature of the designer.”" does not mean all "questions about the “identity or nature” of something" are "religious questions".
It means ID "does not try to address religious questions about the identity or nature of the designer."
It does not say "all questions about the identity or nature of the designer" are religious.
- Screen Name January 27, 2009 4:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
"In fact, the history of life shows a pattern of explosions where new fossil forms come into existence without any clear evolutionary precursors, concurring with design theory that predicts that species might appear abruptly."
Can someone that believes in ID please explain this "abrupt" design of species. When the design happens does a herd of the new species miraculously materialize into existence? Are they born to mothers of a completely different species?
I'll consider that ID is more than smoke and mirrors if someone can give me good answers to how these designed species come into existence.
- reckoner September 10, 2008 11:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"In fact, the history of life shows a pattern of explosions where new fossil forms come into existence without any clear evolutionary precursors, concurring with design theory that predicts that species might appear abruptly."
This is a good example of how ID creationists describe the scientific data of the Cambrian explosion. They even extensively quote mine expert Valentine who recently has argued that based on the evidence, he believes that Darwinian processes are quite sufficient to explain this so called 'explosion' which was neither an explosion nor without evolutionary precursors.
Weird stuff, but anyone familiar with the vast research in this area has to reject these simplistic and even erroneous representations of the Cambrian 'explosion'.
So why do we still hear about them?
- PvM September 10, 2008 11:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
-- Jay --
Intelligent design (ID) has scientific merit in paleontology because in many instances, it can be applied to the fossil record to detect where design has occurred in the history of life by finding the rapid introduction of large amounts of complex and specified information (CSI).(2) (CSI was described in greater detail in my first opening statement.)
---
First of all, no such calculations have ever been applied so it is at best a promissory note. Worse, CSI is not even a reliable detector of 'design' as it cannot preclude natural processes. Worse of course is that even if CSI could be calculated, it would have no relevance as it provides us with no explanations, no mechanisms, nothing. At best, a minor mystery for science to unravel.
What is fascinating to me is how Jay continues to quote mine Darwin and misrepresent the science when it comes for instance to intermediates. Worse, he continues a fine tradition of quote mining Gould. And then he claims that Gould somehow changed his position. While rhetorically understandable, I find it hard to understand why such arguments are made since they not only are trivially shown to be wrong or misleading. But lacking science of their own, what other choices are there for ID proponents?
Now it can be at least partially excused by observing that Jay is not a biologist and thus he may have failed to appreciate Gould's statements which are not contradictory. According to the DI's website, Richard is
--
Jay Wesley Richards has a Ph.D.(honors) in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he was formerly a Teaching Fellow.
--
I am sure that his theological backgrounds have found a good home with the center of Intelligent Design, the Discovery Institute. One may ask oneself what theology and philosophy have to contribute to the scientific status of ID. On the other hand, given that ID is scientifically without content, the theological angle may be more promising? Of course, even there ID has countered much opposition from Christians.
But perhaps Jay can help us understand how ID explains these observations? Was a God involved in all these species transitionals, although he was less involved in transitions between higher groups? How was such achieved? Why are species still following the expected nested hierarchies? Is the creator restricted in how he can create? Surely such questions seem perhaps more appropriate for a theology PhD to address?
- PvM September 10, 2008 10:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
---
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
----
Part of the extensive resources at Talkorigins, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html
More after I do some more research, it's time to reject these arguments once and for all because they add no credibility to ID and they serve to do a disservice to these scientists.
- PvM September 10, 2008 10:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
==Discovery Institute quote mines Mayr
What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. ... The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories."(1)
====
He provides us with the link and what do we find? These are not necessarily Mayr's own beliefs but rather a description of
"The students of diversity raised some observational objections to natural selection. On the basis of the survival of superior individuals and the gradual change of populations, one would expect complete continuity in nature, they claimed"
This seems rather misleading especially since Mayr outlines the objections that faced early Darwinism and the tasks laid out for Darwinism's defenders.
I was thus not surprised to see how many creationist sources seem to similarly quote mine Mayr's quote.
Let's see how I can track down some of the other 'quotes' and see how they add to the 'arguments' by
- PvM September 13, 2008 10:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I was going to post a long reply discussing each quote in detail, but I decided this was SO much simpler.
--Insert ALL quotes from the argument here--
SO WHAT? Quoting other researchers is not science.
Analyze the data, and show how it supports your hypothesis, or go home.
Make a prediction based on your hypothesis, or go home.
Perform experiments, or find new data that validates your hypothesis, or go home.
ID has no merit in any scientific field because it is at best an unfinished hypothesis that makes no predictions.
- PStryder September 16, 2008 7:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"In fact, the history of life shows a pattern of explosions where new fossil forms come into existence without any clear evolutionary precursors, concurring with design theory that predicts that species might appear abruptly."
-------
Let me fix the end of Luskin's quote from above: "... concurring with design theory that predicts that species might or might not appear abruptly."
I would like for Luskin to explain why he thinks that ID should predict an abrupt rather than a non-abrupt appearance of species.
- Hawks September 18, 2008 10:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Perhaps the author can explain why, of all of the thousands of researchers in geology, biology (particularly evolutionary biologists), and paleontology.. in other words the people who are truly eperts in this area.... no more than a very tiny minority support ID.
Why so much emphasis on the fossil record, and little reference to what DNA tells us?
And, if a common ancestor is not incompatible with ID, then why is evolution incompatible with the concept of God? Couldn't God have created the evolutionary process as his way of propagating life?
Fundamental religious people often blindly call on faith to explain difficult or even paradoxical concepts (why do children die?). They appeal to God's mysterious ways, and cite mankind's hubris in attempting a rational explanation. But in the case of evolution, they turn around and claim to know that God does not favor this particular format for the creation of life. Presumably this is because the Bible provides evidence to the contrary. But now we hear that the Bible is subject to interpretation, as, instead of a 7 day process, the creation of life was done over eons, with new forms appearing spontaneously.
Do you believe in the Bible literally, or do you not? And if not, how can you use it to support ID?
- hitac September 28, 2008 12:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The problem with your argument is that it simply depends on a certain kind of fossil not being found, and you have been repeatedly proven wrong over the last 3 or 4 decades when such a fossil is found. Sure, there are may gaps in available data at the moment, but ID proponents are just unwilling to look at the evolutionary pattern underlying the data that we have.
- krishashok December 25, 2008 10:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"The problem with your argument is that it simply depends on a certain kind of fossil not being found,"
That's part of the equation, it also relies on changes or progressions between fossils happening to quickly or too sudden in order for it to be accounted for by chance and necessity.
"...and you have been repeatedly proven wrong over the last 3 or 4 decades when such a fossil is found."
Examples please.
"Sure, there are may gaps in available data at the moment,"
I can agree with you if you mean that we can never declare once and for all the status of the fossil record.
"...but ID proponents are just unwilling to look at the evolutionary pattern underlying the data that we have."
What is it about the current paradigm in paleontology that ID proponents are ignoring?
- F2XL December 29, 2008 9:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
For starters,
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33623/title/Fossil_helps_document_shift_from_sea_to_land
And of course,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
- krishashok December 29, 2008 9:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The DI is correct to point out that a lack of merit of ID should not be confused with its religious implications, however the combinations of its religious foundations with a lack of scientific content, provides a strong argument against ID having merit scientifically and delegates it to the realm of theology. As Schloss points out in his review of the movie "Expelled", in response of the following statement by Hugh Ross, who is leads a prominent Christian apologetics organization called "Reasons to Believe"
--Ross:
they affirm that the approach of seeking the right to be heard avoids denigrating the scientific enterprise, either its individuals or institutions…we have encountered no significant evidence of censorship, blackballing, or disrespect. [and] have witnessed an increasing openness on the part of unbelieving scientists to offer their honest and respectful critique. Our main concern about Expelled is that it paints a distorted picture. It certainly doesn't match our experience. Sadly, it may do more to alienate than to engage the scientific community, and that can only harm our mission.
--
Schloss comments that:
--
While both are important, earning the “right to be heard,” as Ross emphasizes, is surely not the same as demanding the “right to speak,” as Expelled focuses on. Expelled never ends up convincingly demonstrating that the latter is in any real jeopardy, but sadly, it does much to jeopardize the former.
--
Source: Jeffrey P. Schloss, "Overcoming or Raising Walls of Division?" Center for Faith, Ethics, and Life Sciences Westmont College
A right to speak does not mean a right to be earned, the latter one needs to be earned and in order for ID to have any merit to be discussed in science classrooms, it first needs to show a compelling reason as to why. So far ID has failed miserably in presenting a scientific argument. From a theological perspective, the concept of ID seems rather dangerous as it pretends to open up religious faith to scientific scrutiny and thus disproof.
- PvM September 9, 2008 11:13AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Your comments are strange, because Luskin wasn’t saying anything about Expelled. I think that the other posts show DI has great scientific merit—I think their posts refute your statement that “So far ID has failed miserably in presenting a scientific argument.” As Luskin writes:
“While ID may be a minority scientific view, there is no doubt that its proponents have made their case to the scientific community in mainstream scientific venues and that their views deserve the protection of academic freedom: Not only do ID proponents hold tenured positions at respected universities, but they have published their views in respected scientific venues. If one scrutinizes many of the footnotes I have cited in my six opening statements, they will find some examples of the peer-reviewed and / or prestigiously published pro-ID scientific works come from sources such as Cambridge University Press, MIT Press, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Michigan State University Press, Protein Science, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, and Journal of Molecular Biology.”
But I think you don’t realize the importance of your concession that “The DI is correct to point out that a lack of merit of ID should not be confused with its religious implications.” Do you realize that your concession actually refutes many of the critics’ arguments that the implications of ID make it unscientific? For example, see The Ayn Rand Institute’s posts argue that if ID implies a supernatural creator (at the bottom of a chain of designers), then ID is unscientific. Or the NCSE and AUSCS both argue that ID is unscientific because it’s religiously motivated, but Luskin shreds this argument. Seems like you just handed these common objections to ID to the pro-ID side on a platter.
- taxibound2 September 9, 2008 4:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
--But I think you don’t realize the importance of your concession that “The DI is correct to point out that a lack of merit of ID should not be confused with its religious implications.” Do you realize that your concession actually refutes many of the critics’ arguments that the implications of ID make it unscientific? For example, see The Ayn Rand Institute’s posts argue that if ID implies a supernatural creator (at the bottom of a chain of designers), then ID is unscientific.--
I am very aware of my 'concession' namely that it is not just the religious motivations of ID which disqualifies ID as having merit as a science, it's the lack of scientific contributions (the examples you mention have little or no relevance to the concept of ID but are at best examples of "ID proponents can also do real science") which dooms ID to a lack of merit as a scientific contribution.
That ID points to the supernatural is one of the major reasons why it lacks content as such a 'creator' (oops designer) cannot be constrained and thus explains nothing.
I am not sure if the NCSE argues that ID is unscientific just because it is religiously motivated. I think that their argument may be better phrased as "ID's religious motivation helps explain why it has remained scientifically vacuous". This is after all not really about science.
Sure, ID proponents can do real and even good science, but that hardly has any relevance to the issue of whether or not ID has any scientific merit. I hope you understand this major distinction.
- PvM September 9, 2008 4:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Intelligent design, if true, would indeed have amazing implications. Again...if it were true.
ID is an incomplete hypothesis, not a scientific theory. It does not show a detailed analysis of the data that supports the assertions it makes. It does not offer predictions that will validate it's claims. It has not proposed experiments that can be done to either falsify or support it.
ID's entire argument is: As a biased observer, I think life is designed, therefore it is. I'm not going to explain it, or attempt to prove it, it's obvious. If you don't agree, you must have an agenda.
Newton and Kepler did turn out to be right, and the author is right, it was not because of their religious beliefs. It was because of their solid science. ID will not be proven right; not because it has religious foundations, but because it has no solid science.
- PStryder September 16, 2008 7:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
In arguing for the existence of god, Dr. Rihards' states...
"we see physical laws that look like they were set up for the existence of complex life".
This from a man who is committed to Intelligent Design, which is at its core, the the idea that physical laws are not sufficient to account for complex life.
- lastyear September 23, 2008 2:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Of course, ID has to move from its position of ignorance, to a position which allows it to be fully reconcilable with science, namely by arguing a position of 'front loading' which moves the design event to coincide with the Big Bang.
Neat to see how ID proponents have come to move towards a more scientific position, although it does render the ID position to a status of fully religious.
- PvM September 23, 2008 9:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I don't agree with the very first statement that "ID limits its claims to what can be scientifically inferred from the empirical domain." A force unaffected by time and physics that cannot be detected or measured and does not reliably or predictably act cannot be scientifically inferred.
But, since ID supposes a supernatural source, isn't it obligated to investigate the supernatural and find said source? ID works from the presupposition that there is an intelligence out there that created our world and situation. So one would think it makes a big difference to humanity if Earth was formed from a goddess ripped apart by a pair of Aztec gods, or if we all happen to be living in the Dreamtime.
- sharky September 24, 2008 7:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Sharky has pointed out the problem with ID, namely the flawed concept that ordinary and rarefied design can be detected reliably based on the same approach. In fact, we know that in case of ordinary design, science relies on positive hypotheses based on means, motives, opportunities, physical and circumstantial evidence, eye witnesses and more. Rarefied design, by its nature, cannot be constrained and thus science lacks methodology to reliably detect it using the 'design inference' method proposed by ID.
Simple really, if the design inference would lead to false positives (inferring design where there wasn't) it is useless per Dembski's own statements. Since we know of quite a few examples where design inferences led to false positives, the conclusion seems self evident.
When will ID admit to this?
- PvM September 24, 2008 9:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies natural objects to determine if they bear the tell-tale signs that they were designed by an intelligent cause."
And that study has completely failed to convince real scientists that there really are any biological entities that bear such supposedly tell-tale signs. So intelligent design fails in its anti-evolution purpose.
"B. Intelligent design does not attempt to address religious questions about the identity or metaphysical nature of the designer."
Wise choice. But what about non-religious questions like how, what, and when? Oops. Intelligent design does not try to address those questions either.
"C. Intelligent design’s non-identification of the designer stems from an intent to respect for limits of scientific inquiry and not make claims that go beyond what can be learned using scientific methods."
Hilarious. You aren't actually using the scientific method and you are not making any claims that make any sense, so talking about a supposed designer doesn't make any sense anyway.
"Explanations that call on intelligent causes require no miracles but cannot be reduced to materialistic explanations."
Riiight. So it's not natural, but it's also not supernatural. Silly me, I thought those two categories were rather all-encompassing.
"What has kept design outside the scientific mainstream these last 130 years is the absence of precise methods for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones."
Seems reasonable to me. And since that is still true today, ...
"Intelligent causes can be inferred through confirmable data."
So you say. How come those silly scientists don't believe you? Do they just look at your "confirmable data" and say "nonsense"? No intelligent cause required? Isn't it just "obvious"? What kind of proof are they demanding? Oh, that's right, you refuse to speculate about the nature of this "intelligent cause". So why don't they simply think your explanation is a miracle? What's the difference between an unexplainable "intelligent cause" and a "miracle"?
- onein6billion October 3, 2008 3:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The DI agrees that “Methodological naturalism simply requires that, in trying to explain any particular observation or experimental result, an investigator may not resort to miracles. (14)" Note the word "requires". This is the fundamental definition of science.
The DI claims:
"ID is not an appeal to a supernatural cause"
but that is not the right question. The right question is - does ID ALLOW a supernatural cause? If it does, then it can never be science.
"Critics will immediately reply that while ID may not specifically invoke supernatural causation, it leaves open the possibility there was a supernatural creator. For this reason, they will argue that by permitting supernatural causation, ID may be subject to the “whim of a deity” and loses the predictability and reliability required by methodological naturalism."
Of course. And that means it can never be science. So in the next sentence, the DI waves its hands and asserts that:
"This argument is logically flawed."
Hilarious. Why are they allowed to claim this argument is logically flawed? The supernatural can never be part of science and ID admits that their "intelligent cause" could be supernatural. Therefore it follows that ID can never be part of science. If their "intelligent designer" swoops into this natural world on a "whim" and does something, science could never understand or explain it. Science would always say "I don't know why this happened." If ID admits that searching for a natural cause to explain some natural effect could be fruitless, then ID should give up that search and remain outside of science. If ID thinks that there really could be a natural cause that explains their supposed design effect, they should tell their religious supporters and stop taking money from them.
So in the next paragraph, let's change the subject:
"While it is true that ID permits supernatural causation, the same is true of neo-Darwinism."
Again hilarious. Fundamentally, science assumes that there will never be a supernatural cause that produces a natural effect. If this happened, science would be "baffled". Science would say "I don't know yet." Science would continue to look for a natural cause forever. Science never gives up. Maybe that Nobel Prize for a new natural law discovery will be found next year.
The DI has spent millions of dollars on their campaign of propaganda. They may claim that they are spending dollars on "research". But is it research to find a natural cause for their supposed natural "design effect"? Of course not. They are forever in a state of "I don't know" so that really means "Let's don't go there." So they can never do real scientific research into the question of WHY and HOW this cause produces this effect. They can never come up with a scientific explanation. (And that would assume that there is something which actually needs explaining.)
And their propaganda continues:
"More importantly, the design can be strongly inferred regardless of whether the designer is natural or supernatural."
Baloney. No evolutionary scientist agrees with that assertion.
And then their final statement:
"The theory of ID is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause)"
A "theory" must do more than "detect". A theory must EXPLAIN WHY. So it is very clear from this admission that there can never be a "theory of ID". A supernatural cause is outside of science and can never be used to explain why something happens in the natural world.
So, does "intelligent design" have scientific merit? Of course not.
- onein6billion October 4, 2008 3:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
When I grew up, science was a useful tool for discovering things about the world around us. What is this revised definition? If science excludes possibilities before considering them, it has ceased to be a useful tool for learning about reality.
The problem is that the origin of life is not science; it was an historical event. Both evolutionary scientists and IDers make a major mistake by sometimes claiming to address a historical topic (the origin of life) while ignoring historical evidence. No human observed the origin of life. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, who did observe life's origin (as He created it). To make up excuses to refuse to consider this possibility is shows a glaring lack of critical thinking.
So while ID is useful in understanding reality because it is willing to consider the possibility of a designer, it still avoids considering important historical evidence recorded in the Bible.
- seektruth January 13, 2009 3:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
And this site says it better than I could. I love this site. I often go to read its comments and periodicals and newsletters. Here is an article on ID that does discuss the supernatural and I felt it did so very well.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html
There are other nice articles too and I like the resources he uses and states at end of articles.
- Hope7 July 11, 2009 7:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Should we just reject the big-bang as being unscientific since it would require a supernatural cause (according to the 2nd premise you list)?
Is the best you can really come up with is "Who designed the designer?"
- F2XL November 9, 2008 11:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"Why would consideration of the “designer” necessarily introduce “religious discussions about theological questions”? Clearly, it is because his concept of the “designer” is a supernatural one—which was exactly what I was arguing."
If discussion and consideration on the source or identity of the designing force are NOT a part of ID then how would that argument hold?
- F2XL November 23, 2008 12:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The Ayn Rand Center says:
- ID claims that design can be inferred merely from observed complexity (“specified complexity”)—i.e., that complexity is prima facie evidence for design.
- But on this premise, any natural being capable of designing the complex features of earthly life would exhibit sufficient complexity to require its own designer.
---------------------------------
yes.. a scientist who creates life requires a designer. still
-- this is really your argument? That's really unimpressive. Or is this just the same old 'who made God' argument' dressed up.
as a sidenote - a scientist creating life is not that impressive either.. it's the equivalent of burning a cd and saying 'look... I made music!'
- lux113 July 21, 2009 9:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
“ this is really your argument? That's really unimpressive. Or is this just the same old 'who made God' argument' dressed up.”
Well yes. If God is a natural agent, and for a natural agent to be alive it must be designed, then God must have a designer… ergo if God is a natural agent then God must have a designer.
If God is supernatural, and cannot be tested for using natural means, then there is no way to detect God… exists outside of Science, and thus is not part of a scientific argument.,
"as a sidenote - a scientist creating life is not that impressive either.. it's the equivalent of burning a cd and saying 'look... I made music!'
If creating life is not impressive then what in Science is?
- MrBook July 21, 2009 5:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
That argument is using a trick of semantics. If we document something it is no longer 'supernatural'.. it then becomes 'natural'. A 'supernatural' agent CAN be documented... evidence of a ghost for example...to say we shouldn't look for 'supernatural' agents is to say we shouldn't look for anything we haven't seen already. It's like the idea of 'don't talk to strangers'... well if you don't talk to strangers.. how would you ever meet anyone?.. This whole argument is just using flaws in our definitions.. science looks for 'supernatural' things all the time.. and sometimes we find them.. and they become natural.
'If creating life is not impressive then what in Science is? '
Science is useful... but my point is simply that science is based around documenting what we see in nature.. and then mimicking it - The dragonfly gave us ideas on how to build a helicopter.... but our helicopters suck in comparison. Nature is impressive.. man, not as much. (keep in mind I use the word nature.. but of course imply design)
- lux113 July 22, 2009 5:36AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
“This whole argument is just using flaws in our definitions.. science looks for 'supernatural' things all the time.. and sometimes we find them.. and they become natural.”
Science does not look for things outside of nature (Super natural) it makes an observation of a phenomena and (under the assumption that there is a natural explanation for the phenomena) attempts to produce a theory that can be used to explain the phenomena, and to predict when the phenomena occurs.
“The dragonfly gave us ideas on how to build a helicopter.... but our helicopters suck in comparison.”
How so? Our helicopters are far more useful then the dragonfly. We can ride in it and have them lift massive objects. Also the principals behind dragonfly flight (and all insect flight) is drastically different from how helicopters fly.
“Nature is impressive.. man, not as much. (keep in mind I use the word nature.. but of course imply design”
Nature is incredibly amazing, that does not mean that the telescopes that let us see back billions of years are not also impressive… also, I in no way imply design when I use the word Nature.
- MrBook July 22, 2009 4:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Needless to say, even ID proponents have come to realize that ID is lacking scientifically speaking
For instance Young Earth Creationist, philosopher and ID proponent Paul Nelson is on the record as saying
--
Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.
--
Paul Nelson, Touchstone Magazine 7/8 (2004): pp 64 – 65.
More recently, godfather of ID, lawyer Phil Johnson has stated
--
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.
--
Michelangelo D’Agostino "In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley", Berkeley Science Review, issue 10, spring 2006
Now remember that Johnson has described quite accurately the goal of ID
--
“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.”
--
Source: American Family Radio, Jan 10, 2003 broadcast, in which Johnson “discusses his book The Right Questions, encouraging Christians to actively debate issues of eternal value.”
Various other ID proponents have similarly come to this conclusion, not only arguing that the issue of ID is not really about science, since ID lacks much of any scientific foundation allowing it to be a scientific hypothesis, but also that it is all about religion.
It's not the religious motivations which doom ID to irrelevance, it's the lack of scientific merit and content which makes ID at best a flawed religious argument, an argument which many Christians, including me, have come to reject.
The ASA (American Scientific Affiliation) is an organization where scientists of Christian faith can share their faith and science and they have come to reject Intelligent Design because it is scientifically vacuous and theologically flawed.
- PvM September 9, 2008 9:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
This post by Casey Luskin graphically illustrates why Intelligent Design is not science. Lack of even simple standards of scholarship fatally flaw ID arguments. For example, in attempting to discuss a paper by Pancer et al., (Nature, 2004 Vol. 430: 174-180) that Luskin thinks shows that there was a big gap in the origin of the vertebrate immune system, Lusking claims:
Furthermore, when these authors say that the usage of IG domains is “untraceable,” they are not asking the question “from what were these materials co-opted during evolution?” IG domains are found throughout biology from bacteria to humans and thus it is simple to imagine where higher vertebrates might have co-opted such domains. Rather, this paper is talking about the type of deeper question Behe raises: by what Darwinian pathway did IG domains evolve into the type of IG domain used by antibodies in the adaptive immune system of higher vertebrates?
This completely misrepresents the Pancer paper. It was not in anyway about the evolution of Ig domains, and as such it did not ask questions about Darwinian pathways to Ig, contray to what Luskin implies. The Pancer et al., paper reports the discovery of the class of molecules that produced allograft rejection in Lampreys. They found it was not an Ig system, as in jawed fish and the rest of us vertebrates, but due to a completely different class of molecule. In Jawless fish, there is no adaptive Ig system. The one throwaway line line that Luskin quotes needs to be seen in the context that the paper was written (discovering the mechanism of adaptive immunity in an organism without rearranging Ig molecules), it is not saying that we have no idea of how Ig molecules evolved. In fact, it says nothing about the evolution of Ig molecules at all.
For a paper that actually does look at the evolution of Ig molecules, one need look no further than another paper Pancer et all published in 2004. Note that before this paper was published, it was already known that several Ig-like molecules had been identified in amphioxus and sea squirts that could play the role of the ancestor of Ig. This is not just proteins with the Ig fold, but deeper Ig structure. In sea squirts there are Ig fold proteins (nectin and Junctional Adehesion Molecules) with an Ig fold and a Constant-Variable domain architecture just like the immunoglobulins. Also in amphioxus there is an Ig protein which is used in innate immunity (the Variable Domain Chitin Binding proteins) that was known in 2004 (in 2006 a protein that is a very similar to the T Cell Receptor and is involved in innate immunity was found in the amphioxus, be here I'm dealing with 2004 knowledge relevant to Behe's testimony).
Pancer's paper on the evolution of Ig molecules Pancer Z, Mayer WE, Klein J, Cooper MD (2004) Prototypic T cell receptor and CD4-like coreceptor are expressed by lymphocytes in the agnathan sea lamprey. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:13273-13278 . Here they report finding a molecule in the lymphocytes of Lampreys that looks very much like the immunogloblulin T Cell Receptor. Not only does it have an Ig fold, and a constant-variable domain structure, it also has a joining, constant and cytoplasmic chain structure that matches the structure of modern rearranging T Cell Receptors. It looks just like you would expect a non-rearranging ancestor of TCR/Ig to look like. SInce then several other memebrs of non-rearranging Ig like molecules have been found in Lamprey lymphocytes.
Now, it wouldn't take much to discover this paper on Ig evolution, a simple PubMed search would have found this paper, it is also listed in reviews on the evolution of adaptive immunity from 2004 to 2005. Yet Luskin ignores it completely and discusses, as his key argument against our account of the evolutuon of immunity, a paper which does not look at the evolution of Ig at all.
Let me repeat this, Luskin is using a paper that reports that a) Lampreys have an adaptive immune system and b) the Lamprey genome does not adaptive immunoglobulin genes, and then discoverers the mechanisms that produce adaptive immunity (a novel variant of an innate immunity mechanism) to claim that we have no accounts of how Ig molecules could have evolved. He ignores the paper by the same group that reports the very protein that Luskin claims is missing from our account of immune system evolution.
If a prominent ID advocate can't even get the description of one basic paper right, how are they going to handle more complicated papers on the evolution of the immune system?
- Ian Musgrave
September 18, 2008 7:36AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
--Ian asks
If a prominent ID advocate can't even get the description of one basic paper right, how are they going to handle more complicated papers on the evolution of the immune system?
--
In other words, it's not just the ignorance of science but the ignorance of the ID proponent which seems to trigger 'design inferences'. The subjective nature of the design inference seems to be another problematic component. And remember, according to Dembski if the filter triggers a false positive (detects design where there is none) it would render the filter useless. Dembski goes on to claim that no false positives are ever triggered by the filter but we already know that this is wrong.
- PvM September 18, 2008 8:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"ID has legal and educational merit because it is a bona fide scientific theory ..."
The problem is that the word "theory" has a scientific definition and " intelligent design " has never provided any definition that would qualify it as a "scientific theory".
"Legally assessing whether ID science or religion is complicated by the fact that courts have not agreed upon a consensus definition of science or religion."
Fortunately, the courts have let scientists decide what is science and theologists decide what is religion. Since "intelligent design" is not actually science, whether or not it is religion is irrelevant. But the words "intelligent design" are clearly used by creationists in their attempts to claim that evolution is wrong. So if those words actually had any meaning, everyone would assume it was a religious meaning.
- onein6billion March 11, 2009 9:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
None of these promises have much relevance to ID as a concept nor have few if any come to fruition. The proof is in the pudding, the saying goes and ID so far has remained scientifically without content and while it surely makes a lot of promises, it has made little or no progress to actually live up to said promises.
As to the 'hostility' towards intelligent design, scientists have come to realize that ID's foundations and its lack of scientific content make it an enemy of reason, as an unconstitutional attempt to introduce a yet to be proven scientific concept into our public schools. As guardians of science, scientists and their organizations have a duty to speak out as to the nature of ID.
ID has the right to speak, but that does not mean a right to be heard.
- PvM September 9, 2008 6:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The only reason there would be more research into junk DNA would be because ID supporters have misunderstood what ID has to say about junk DNA - which is precisely nothing.
Might I suggest that the main reason why the authors think that ID would open up new avenues of scientific research in animal biology is because they don't know the meaning of the word 'vestigial'?
- Hawks September 17, 2008 8:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I am always tickled by claims of ID advocates that "Darwinism" stifles inquiry and that only ID creationism will 'break the shackles' that "Darwinism" puts on the mind, that ID creationism will open 'avenues of insight' into practically everything.
I am tickeld by this because when you look at the scientific output of one who has subcsribed to the ID creationist paradigm, you see next to nothing. Once prolific scientists become ID advocates, they stop producing anything of merit. Look at Kenyon. Look at Behe. Look at Gonzalez.
If ID creationism were so liberating, why are not ID advoactes the ones making all the grand discoveries?
For example,ID creationists like to claim that they 'predicted' all along that 'JunkDNA' would be functional. Ask them to document their prediction. You won't see a thing. Especially since function was known to exist in some junk DNA as early as the 1950s.
They are co-opters, embellishers, and fabricators who prey on the gullible and the uninformed and the culturally conservative.
ID is not scientific, certainly not in an honest fashion.
- slpage September 18, 2008 7:59AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"It also means that scientists who hold legitimate scientific views deserve to be heard even if their views differ from the consensus."
You claim that these "scientists" hold legitimate scientific views - but that is the very topic under contention. It would seem that you claim that they deserve to be heard and have not been heard - but that is also under dispute. I assert that they have been heard and their arguments have been refuted and thus they are legitimately ignored until they come up with some actual scientific evidence and arguments.
"ID holds merit because the acceptance of ID will not only encourage new avenues of scientific research,"
Well, it has not happened in the last 20 years - why should there be the slightest chance that this non-scientific nonsense will "encourage" "new avenues" of scientific research in the future? And, if this is the actual goal of "intelligent design", why is there such an emphasis on trying to get this nonsense introduced into the public high school classroom?
"With about 70 billion stars..."
This number seems to be in error by a factor of a trillion or so. What fool wants credit for this sentence? :-)
" ... 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth),"
So what? 3 billion years of evolution is a loooong time.
"... the universe is a stunningly complex place."
Nonsense. The universe that we can see so far is quite simple. It's only the evolved life forms on this Earth that appear to be complex. It is amazing that evolving DNA with only 4 components can produce such a complexity of life, but it obviously has, so there's no need to claim that this is "stunning". And even if it was "stunning", that is a meaningless adjective with respect to the discussion of the nonsense that is "intelligent design".
- onein6billion September 18, 2008 7:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"I assert that they have been heard and their arguments have been refuted and thus they are legitimately ignored until they come up with some actual scientific evidence and arguments."
At least Luskin actually provide something to back up his "asserts."
"Well, it has not happened in the last 20 years - why should there be the slightest chance that this non-scientific nonsense will "encourage" "new avenues" of scientific research in the future?"
Actually..............
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/more_similarities_between_flag.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/biology_replaces_technology_as.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/video_molecular_machines_and_t.html
....so therefore there is pretty good reason to assume that it will.
"And, if this is the actual goal of " intelligent design ", why is there such an emphasis on trying to get this nonsense introduced into the public high school classroom?"
Ummm, I'm pretty sure if the goal of ID is to encourage new avenues of research (which you say is the goal of ID), then it definitely has it's place in the classroom.
"This number seems to be in error by a factor of a trillion or so. What fool wants credit for this sentence? :-)"
Where in the article you're commenting on does it use that value?
"So what? 3 billion years of evolution is a loooong time."
Yeah, though the debate is whether it's long enough.
"The universe that we can see so far is quite simple."
Yes, in a sense. Though no one can argue the laws have no structure.
"It's only the evolved life forms on this Earth that appear to be complex."
Not to mention the earth which sustains them.
"It is amazing that evolving DNA with only 4 components can produce such a complexity of life, but it obviously has, so there's no need to claim that this is "stunning"."
If it didn't happen by unguided forces, then yes it is.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/leading_origin_of_life_researc.html
"And even if it was "stunning", that is a meaningless adjective with respect to the discussion of the nonsense that is "intelligent design"."
What "nonsense?"
- F2XL November 6, 2008 8:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If there's something on " evolution news", it's irrelevant to "intelligent design" and/or distorted beyond all scientific recognition.
"the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human"
So what?
"But sometimes engineers find that biology itself is a superior replacement..."
So what?
"without supplying adequate sequential evidence"
No amount of "sequential evidence" would ever satisfy a creationist.
"I think genetic information more or less came out of nowhere by chance assemblages of short polymers."
Now that makes good scientific sense - "chance" was sufficient.
"Might I suggest that intelligent design is a better explanation?"
Might I suggest that your suggestion is without evidence or merit? It's just unfounded speculation.
- onein6billion November 7, 2008 6:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"If there's something on " evolution news", it's irrelevant to "intelligent design" and/or distorted beyond all scientific recognition."
That sentence alone tells me you either need to get out more, or need to at least read what the blog is actually about. Or maybe I'm asking for too much. Then again, you did take the time to at least read SOME of the article, and you seem to have conceded that it is on the topic of ID.
"So what?"
Seems like you'd rather throw those words out to some of the statements in that article instead of actually refuting them. If biology leads to new design if it is viewed in that context, then ID obviously does encourage new avenues of research.
"No amount of "sequential evidence" would ever satisfy a creationist."
While I agree this is true for ID skeptics, I must ask: what do "creationists" have to do with this?
"Now that makes good scientific sense - "chance" was sufficient."
You do realize that your saying the millions of organized base pairs in the first cell just came out of nowhere right?
"Might I suggest that your suggestion is without evidence or merit? It's just unfounded speculation."
Ahem, might I suggest that your suggestion is without evidence or merit? It's just unfounded speculation.
- F2XL November 9, 2008 11:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"If biology leads to new design if it is viewed in that context,"
And it never has and never will. So, irrelevant nonsense.
"You do realize that your saying the millions of organized base pairs in the first cell just came out of nowhere right?"
Nope. Your ignorance is abysmal.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/11/exploring-the-o.html
"It's just unfounded speculation."
Nope - it's well-founded speculation. See above.
- onein6billion November 9, 2008 1:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"And it never has and never will. So, irrelevant nonsense."
And it has, and always will. So therefore, relevant perspective.
http://biologicinstitute.org/2008/10/17/the-genius-behind-the-ingenious /
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/biologic_explores_the_successe.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/as_engineers_turn_to_marine_bi.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/engineers_improve_human_techno.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/the_human_eye_is_so_poorly_des.html
"Nope. Your ignorance is abysmal.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/11/exploring-the-o.html "
Speak for yourself. In order to explain how RNA could have been the prime starter for the origin of life you must explain how all four nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, uracil), the five-carbon sugar ribose, and a phosphate group could have formed in the same primordial soup when all six of those things develop under completely DIFFERENT chemical conditions. It would be like baking a cake by manufacturing the flower, eggs, sugar, yeast, etc. in the exact same bowl. It can't happen:
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/ribo171.htm
And let's not forget the dreaded Spiegelman monster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman_Monster
"Nope - it's well-founded speculation. See above."
After seeing the above, I must ask: well-founded on what?
BTW: Should we stick to cellular origins for now?
- F2XL November 10, 2008 8:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The "Biologic Institute"???
My, my, what nonsense.
Many stupid "evolutionnews" and "arn" references.
I ignore nonsense.
"let's not forget the dreaded Spiegelman monster:"
"Such a short RNA had been able to replicate very quickly in these unnatural circumstances."
Yes, "unnatural circumstances" often shed light on the real world. So what?
"I must ask: well-founded on what?"
Science, you ninny.
- onein6billion November 11, 2008 10:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
So your argument is, by pushing scientists to find more junk DNA (it is, in fact, useless to the organism,) vestigial limbs (my tailbone does nothing and has no purpose, and I could have it removed with no damage to my functioning,) and other disproofs of Intelligent Design, ID serves the purpose of annoying scientists into progress?
Couldn't you just advance the cause of science by doing experiments and recording data?
- sharky September 24, 2008 6:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Unfortunately Dr. Behe continues his standard modus operandi, which is making bald assertions backed up by incredibly tenditious interpretations of mainstream evolutionary research, and ignoring the counterevidence which has been publicly presented to him again and again.
In this essay Behe makes basically two assertions: (1) observed evolution mostly produces "degradative changes" and (2) mutation & selection cannot produce irreducibly complex systems. Addressing them in turn:
1. Behe, either here or elsewhere, has provided no objective definition of what evolutionary changes are "degradative" and what are "improvements". It's entirely his subjective opinion, which lets him arbitrarily declare anything he feels forced to accept as a natural evolutionary product to be "degradative". But what is degradative? Probably most evolutionary changes that improve e.g. a protein in one aspect "degrade" a protein in some other aspects. Optimization for specific binding to substrate A will often (not always) decrease binding to substrate B. But on this standard, a great number of evolutionary changes that Behe surely would consider "improvements" would actually be "degradative." Ape feet are prehensile, with thumbs and great dexterity. They evolved into human feet, which have pretty miserable dexterity and actually aren't even that good as feet compared to, say, virtually any other large running vertebrate (think of cow hooves or ostrich feet). Bird wings are pretty spiffy at flight, but they're no good at what they used to be (the grasping forelimbs of bipedal carnivorous dinosaurs). Human brains are certainly great evolutionary innovations, but came at the cost of numerous, pretty much ludicrous compromises from the point of view of a tidy-minded designer focused on a general sense of improvement (i.e., someone like Michael Behe): that huge head has to be jammed through the female pelvis (why? why not put the birth canal in just any other part of the female body? You will find the answers in evolution, not intelligent design), resulting in difficult, very painful births compared to other animals, and high rates of mother & infant mortality & injury. To this we can add literally years of painstaking childcare and teaching (compare to the large animals on the African savanna, who can stand and run within hours of being born) to train up the brain and the underdeveloped infant body, and a major energetic cost.
The point is that someone using Behe's loose, arbitrary standards could pretty much argue that any evolutionary change was "degradative." He isn't doing science, he's just name-calling.
If we move to Behe's likely defense position, the situation doesn't improve. Perhaps Behe would argue that "breaking genes" or "decreasing substrate specificity" are objectively degradative. Perhaps, but if that's his standard, then his argument is easily disproven, because we have numerous examples of (a) evolution producing new genes with new functions and (b) evolution producing increases in substrate specificity. Examples are easy to find, Behe likely won't even dispute this point since he knows it is true (unlike most ID advocates, incidentally), but here are references to reviews for those who are interested:
Long, M., E. Betrán, K. Thornton, and W. Wang. 2003. The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old. Nature Reviews Genetics 4: 865-875.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=The +origin+of+new+genes%3A+glimpses+from+the+young+and+old&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
Nicholas J. Matzke (2007). “The edge of creationism.” Trends In Ecology and Evolution (review of Behe's The Edge of Evolution):
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/full-text-of-th.html
(to be continued)
- Nick Matzke September 9, 2008 7:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
I was wondering where Behe got his data since Lenksi's site showed clearly how fitness had been increasing, so the claim that at best there were a few degenerative mutations shows a lack of familiarity with the actual data or perhaps a sign of forgetfulness.
And people wonder why scientists have come to find ID to be scientifically vacuous...
- PvM September 9, 2008 9:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Nadège Philippe, Estelle Crozat, Richard E. Lenski , Dominique Schneider, Evolution of global regulatory networks during a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli, BioEssays, Volume 29 Issue 9, Pages 846 - 860
Abstract
Evolution has shaped all living organisms on Earth, although many details of this process are shrouded in time. However, it is possible to see, with one's own eyes, evolution as it happens by performing experiments in defined laboratory conditions with microbes that have suitably fast generations. The longest-running microbial evolution experiment was started in 1988, at which time twelve populations were founded by the same strain of Escherichia coli. Since then, the populations have been serially propagated and have evolved for tens of thousands of generations in the same environment. The populations show numerous parallel phenotypic changes, and such parallelism is a hallmark of adaptive evolution. Many genetic targets of natural selection have been identified, revealing a high level of genetic parallelism as well. Beneficial mutations affect all levels of gene regulation in the cells including individual genes and operons all the way to global regulatory networks. Of particular interest, two highly interconnected networks - governing DNA superhelicity and the stringent response - have been demonstrated to be deeply involved in the phenotypic and genetic adaptation of these experimental populations.
---
Wow who would have guessed this from reading Behe's descriptions.
- PvM September 9, 2008 9:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
2. Behe claims that normal evolutionary processes cannot, or are very unlikely, to produce irreducibly complex systems that make the cell "reek of design." Behe, while he claims Lenski's work shows that evolution doesn't lead to new complexity and new systems, someone manages to avoid mentioning that that Lenski's E. coli bacteria were able to evolve a new biochemical pathway that could eat citrate, a chemical that E. coli in the wild cannot eat (Blount, Z.D., Borland, C.Z., and Lenski, R.E. 2008. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 105:7899-7906.). Behe was forced to write a laughable response ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O ) that dodged the implications (evolution even in a limited lab population can produce a new beneficial system, i.e. an improvement that was not "degradative"), but, as per his modus operandi, he will dance and redefine his terms rather than admit that his argument against evolution has been falsified.
Unfortunately for Behe, Lenski's work is not isolated. The adaptation of bacteria to eat substrates that are indigestible to the wild-type bacteria -- or even compounds that are toxic -- is an extremely common phenomenon in labs that has been known for decades. And it is known to occur in the wild. There are several cases where bacteria in the wild have developed the ability to break down compounds that purely anthropogenic -- that is, chemicals that did not exist in the environment until humans manufactured them. For this very reason, these chemicals are often good preservatives (for example, wooden telephone polls) and/or highly toxic. They are often considered pollutants in the soil or water, so a fair bit of work has gone into discovering what happens to them. Again and again, the pattern seems to be that after a few decades, some bacterium has assembled a novel pathway -- always by assembling and modifying pre-existing enzymes with other original functions. Well-known examples include nylon, PCP (pentachlorophenol, a preservative of e.g. wood), and 2,4-DNT (dinitrotoluene, a breakdown product of the explosive TNT, or trinitrotoluene, which is often a soil pollutant on military bases). In at least the cases of PCP and 2,4-DNT, the breakdown pathways have multiple required parts, and therefore ought to be considered irreducibly complex (except that Behe will often dodge here also and invoke a "strict" definition of IC which excludes metabolic pathways, a definition which he invokes only when convenient, and which is arbitrary because the IC argument really only relies on the "multiple required features, too improbable to evolve at once" logic; in other situations he and his allies have declared various metabolic pathways to be IC when it seems to help the argument).
One more alternative might be to say that evolution hasn't produced anything "new" in these situations, only re-used old parts. This too would be the ID advocates sawing off the limb they sitting on; for every "irreducibly complex" system the ID guys like to tout as evidence for ID -- the flagellum, the cilium, the immune system, the blood-clotting cascade, etc. -- is basically just a combination of parts known to have other functions in related organisms or systems. The parts have statistically strong sequence similarity, and sequence similarity is explained by copying, and copying of sequence is the result of gene duplication, which (along with subsequent modification) is the main explanation that evolutionary biologists have invoked for the origin of new genes and "new information" for generations. The ID advocates have almost completely ignored this simple, obvious, well-documented, testable, and well-tested explanation for biological "information" and "complexity" for nearly 20 years now. This demonstrates scientific incompetence and carelessness, and lends support to the view (which is undeniable but outside the scope of this post; read the Kitzmiller decision for some of that) that ID is not about good science at all, but really just a branch of conservative religious apologetics.
- Nick Matzke September 10, 2008 10:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
To those unfamiliar with Nick Matzke, he was one of the (many) instrumental contributors to the success of the Kitzmiller v Dover ruling, as part of the plaintiffs' team. Not only has Nick contributed significantly to the unraveling of Behe's 'flagellum must have been designed' argument but he has also shown the evolution of ID from "creationist" via the intermediate fossil "cdesign proponentsist" to "design proponent". In fact, thanks to Nick Matzke and the plaintiffs' team, Behe's testimony during the Kitzmiller trials became useful evidence for the plaintiffs and the judge quoted extensively from Behe's testimony in his final ruling to show not only why the school board was motivated by religion but also that ID fails to be scientifically relevant.
And of course, Nick has always been at the frontline of defending scientific competence and accuracy.
- PvM September 10, 2008 10:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I understand that Michael Behe is one of the participants on this forum and I am looking forward to his contributions addressing Matzke's observations.
- PvM September 11, 2008 12:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Behe claims that --They can bring together separate components and place them in relationship to each other, to create an effect that may be extremely unlikely to occur by chance. So we detect design by inferring that some parts appear to have been arranged for a purpose.--
Remember however that this addresses only chance and not regularity. In fact, it is regularity which helps us understand how design inferences work in real science where science deals in concepts such as means, motives and opportunities to narrow down the possibilities not by relying on chance but rather on an interplay of regularity and chance. How do we determine that a person was involved in a crime? Not by stating that 'chance and regularity' cannot explain the data thus designed. Few crimes if any have been solved in this manner, and that should come as no surprise since we would expect to see many innocent people locked up. Without however understanding motive, means and opportunities, one cannot easily make a design conclusion. Gary Hurd presented a good example of how the circumstance of our background knowledge can greatly affect our inference. The case involves an example in which a religious person was bitten by a snake. Initially this seemed to be just another accident, until the police found out that the snake was part of a snake charming ceremony in which the faithful handle snakes. While not as much an accident, it was also not a case of attempted homicide but it could be interpreted as an attempted suicide. After all, what person would willingly handle these poisonous snakes? But then the police found out that the woman was the wife of the preacher and that the preacher had just taken out a large life insurance for his wife. Now suddenly the police became suspicious. But was this evidence of murder or just a coincidence?
ID's hypothesis would be useless in this case. Of course, ID proponents may argue that the design inference is not meant for all circumstances but I would argue that for rarefied design, it is unsuitable in any circumstance. Rarefied design is design which lacks the necessary information to constrain the explanatory power through relevant background data.
In addition, while the concept of purpose is used by Behe, ID provides no way to determine purpose and in fact, due to its teleological nature, natural selection, which selects for function can be easily lead to apparent design. In fact, this returns us to the Paley problem namely that science replace our ignorance with scientific pathways to explain the evolution of life on earth. That subsequent data continued to strengthen these findings has made evolutionary theory such a powerful explanation.
While ID has good reasons to want to return to the pre-Paleyian age, it presents no methods to differentiate between apparent and actual design. In fact, such a differentiation is never truly possible in case of the supernatural because one could always argue that the designer used nature for its design, just like the evidence suggests.
In fact, ID does not infer purpose or a purposeful arrangement, it merely claims that design is that which remains when science has failed (so far) to explain a particular feature or system. However, to call our ignorance 'design' is just equivocating on concepts.
So next time an ID proponent asserts that ID detects design through the purposeful arrangement of parts, let's remember that this is NOT how ID's methods work.
- PvM September 9, 2008 7:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
And worse, during the Dover trials, the judge came to conclude that based on the evidence presented
---Judge Jones---
We will now consider the purportedly “positive argument” for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the “purposeful arrangement of parts.” Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference is quantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified. (18:90-91, 18:109-10 (Behe); 37:50 (Minnich)). As previously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley’s argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paley reach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God. (1:6- 7 (Miller); 38:44, 57 (Minnich)). Expert testimony revealed that this inductive argument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruled out. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99 (Miller)).
Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the “purposeful arrangement of parts” is based upon an analogy to human design. Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, according to Professor Behe, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design. (18:116-17, 23:50 (Behe)). Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails. Unlike biological systems, human artifacts do not live and reproduce over time. They are non-replicable, they do not undergo genetic recombination, and they are not driven by natural selection. (1:131-33 (Miller); 23:57-59 (Behe)). For human artifacts, we know the designer’s identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer’s abilities, needs, and desires. (D-251 at 176; 1:131-33 (Miller); 23:63 (Behe); 5:55- 58 (Pennock)). With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. (38:44-47 (Minnich)). In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. (23:61-73 (Behe)). Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. (23:73 (Behe)).
It is readily apparent to the Court that the only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance, i.e. if it looks complex or designed, it must have been designed. (23:73 (Behe)). This inference to design based upon the appearance of a “purposeful arrangement of parts” is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system. Although both Professors Behe and Minnich assert that there is a quantitative aspect to the inference, on cross-examination they admitted that there is no quantitative criteria for determining the degree of complexity or number of parts that bespeak design, rather than a natural process. (23:50 (Behe); 38:59 (Minnich)). As Plaintiffs aptly submit to the Court, throughout the entire trial only one piece of evidence generated by Defendants addressed the strength of the ID inference: the argument is less plausible to those for whom God’s existence is in question, and is much less plausible for those who deny God’s existence. (P- 718 at 705).
---
- PvM September 9, 2008 7:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Yes, when one sees a flower garden or Mount Rushmore for the first time, one assumes the object was created by an intelligent being. However, this is not at all like looking at a biological mechanism and coming to a similar conclusion. We are familiar with the capabilities of humans and know, when we see the flower garden or Mount Rushmore, that humans are all over the place in this world and completely capable of creating such things. So it is not an unreasonable assumption that people made those things: we know they are capable and have created many similar things.
However, people do not do such things as design eyes or flagelli.
A much better analogy would be if we saw an object that clearly looked designed (say, a carving of a human face) on another planet, where we know with great certainty that humans could not have created the object. That some intelligent being created the object is one theory, but how would we go about vetting that theory? We would look for evidence of that being or others like it. If none could be found whatsoever, and plausible alternate explanations for how the shape, or similar shapes, can arise naturally are developed, the natural conclusion would be that while there was an *appearance* of design, there is no evidence to support the theory.
This is the case for biological mechanisms. No evidence of a designer has been given beyond that the mechanisms seem to be designed. And evolution is very well established and explains well a great many biological mechanisms, including many that may look designed at first. So we have our plausible alternative, and we have no evidence of the designer.
The way in which Intelligent Design shows its religious underpinnings so clearly is in the way it doesn't even attempt to discuss the designer, as if the designer is unknowable and unprovable from the start.
- mj75 September 10, 2008 9:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
--MJ75--
However, people do not do such things as design eyes or flagelli.
--
Exactly and the evidence supports a much better explanation as Nick Matzke has shown. However, ID seems to have mostly ignored these inconvenient facts.
- PvM September 10, 2008 9:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It is also possible to "detect design" by reading what other experts say about so-called "experts." For instance, while it is true to say that Michael Behe is a professor in the Biology Department at Lehigh University, it is also true that:
"The (Lehigh University Biology) department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." - http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm
Lehigh's entire Biology Department (with one exception) agrees with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Science, and essentially every other actual science organization in the country that intelligent design creationism is not science.
Intelligent design creationism's claim to be "science" remains unsupported in the world of actual science. Intelligent design creationism's continued visible support from fundamentalist Christians provides an illustration of what its actual design really is.
- Paul Burnett September 13, 2008 9:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Michael Behe may be best known for his book "Darwin's Black Box" and to a lesser extent its sequel "The Edge of evolution". Both books attempt to show that there limits (edges) to evolutionary theory which cannot be crossed.
Let's first point out that much of Behe's argument is not with evolutionary theory itself but a component of said theory, namely natural selection. For instance, his Irreducible Complexity argument relies on the (erroneous) claim that processes of variation and selection (aka Darwinian processes) are unable to explain systems which are 'irreducibly complex (IC)".
In order to understand why Behe is wrong, one need not look further than
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
First of all the problem of IC systems and its solution was pointed out by a Nobel Prize winner and evolutionary scientist almost a century ago ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html )
Muller, H. J. (1918) "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors." Genetics 3:422-499.
Muller, H. J. (1939) "Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics." Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14:261-280.
---
"... thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors ..."
Muller 1918 pp. 463-464. (emphasis in the original)
"... an embryological or physiological process or structure newly arisen by gene mutation, after becoming once established (with or without the aid of selection), later takes more and more part in the whole complex interplay of vital processes. For still further mutations that arise are now allowed to stay if only they work in harmony with all genes that are already present, and, of these further mutations, some will naturally depend, for their proper working, on the new process or structure under consideration. Being thus finally woven, as it were, into the most intimate fabric of the organism, the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary."
Muller 1939 pp. 271-272.
---
However, Keith Robison described a very similar example where simple evolutionary processes lead to a system which is IC ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html )
--
So, duplication plus a loss of function, plus one of two different loss-of-function mutations can convert a single step pathway into a two step cascade. The initial steps are neutral, neither advantageous nor disadvantageous. Such neutral mutations occur regularly. The final step locks in the cascade.
--
ID's objections to the above scenario are that it involves neutral steps and are thus not 'Darwinian' in nature, but like Darwin, evolutionary science accepts that selection is but one of various processes and the importance of neutrality on evolution has been historically underestimated.
Dembski, understanding one of Behe's flaws redefined IC to read
--
A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)
--
Note the addition of 'original function', this prevents the most common pathways in evolution to be irrelevant to explaining IC systems, but now Dembski has to show that indeed, original function was maintained in any particular system. While this may have temporarily saved Behe's original fomulation, it has merely defined IC systems to be something which is much harder to establish as it involves a historical component of 'original function'.
- PvM September 14, 2008 10:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
In his latest book "Edge of Evolution" Behe attempts to define this edge by pointing to malaria as an example of a designed system in which, according to Behe, two simultaneous mutations are required, and given the estimated probabilities of 1 in 10^20, this may be quite unlikely.
First of all, Behe's estimate of probabilities come from a side comment in a paper which at best ventures to guess at probabilities :
--
The estimates for chloroquine and artemisinin are speculative. In the former case, this assumes two events in 10 years of use with exposure of 10% of the world’s falciparum malaria (Burgess &Young 1959; Martin&Arnold1968; Looareesuwan et al. 1996; Su et al. 1997
--
and ignores the relevant research that shows the gradual evolution of resistance to malaria as document in various research papers:
Pooja Mittra, Sumiti Vinayak, Hina Chandawat, Manoj K. Das, Neeru Singh, Sukla Biswas, Vas Dev, Ashwani Kumar, Musharraf A. Ansari, and Yagya D. Sharma, Progressive Increase in Point Mutations Associated with Chloroquine Resistance in Plasmodium falciparum Isolates from India
Volume 193(2006), pages 1304 - 1312
For more details, see Nick Matzke's contribution
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/full-text-of-th.html
- PvM September 14, 2008 10:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
The following is a quote from your points: Quote "The more parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose, and the more precisely they fit each other to achieve that purpose, the more and more confident we can be in our conclusion of design. For example, if you came across a broken stick on the ground in the woods that pointed toward a campsite, it may be a signal to campers, or it may just be a stick that happened to fall that way. If there were four broken sticks, arranged into an arrow shape pointing at the camp, you’d be fairly confident that that was no accident." end Quote
Sticks to the campsite:
1. The current Calendar that makind has been using for 2008 years is based from the time of Christ's death, known as A.D. (After Death).
2. The timeline used prior to Christ's death is B.C. (Before Christ).
3. The Holy Bible is the most read text in the world and reprinted millions of times. There were plenty of scholars of the time that could have refuted and stopped this text from spreading. So you ask yourself why would such a text continue to this day? Is all that read it delusioned? Are the over a billion people on this planet mistaken about the existence of Intelligent Design?
4. Why do most people want to close their ears and even become defensive on the words printed in this text (Holy Bible)? When they don't even know what is in it. Why is mankind quick to embrace a different approach, but not the Bible which is an instruction manual from the chief I.D.?
These are signs left behind for those who continue to question ID.
- dadunique October 13, 2008 10:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Behe says: "Intelligent agents can plan ahead, and act on their plans."
If this is true, then there should always be a conscious effort to prevent lines of organisms from evolving into specialized forms that later become prone to extinction when a sudden change occurs in the environment. What happens instead, according to the fossil record, is that many spectacular but highly specialized animals arise which then suffer from mass extinctions, followed by new and different animals that end up occupying the same ecological niches the extinct ones did. If Intelligent Design made life on Earth, we would expect the designer to make all animals generalized in form and they would almost never go extinct. Evolution by natural selection is a blind process, taking no possible future events into account, that causes most lines of organisms to become more specialized over time. It does this so a species can occupy one ecological niche and keep other species out. When several species occupy the same ecological niche, competition between them eventually cause more specialization and/or causes most of the species to become extinct. Then a sudden change in the environment causes the remaining specialists to die out. That doesn't sound at all like an intelligent agent planning ahead.
- Dale Husband October 16, 2008 2:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"So we detect design by inferring that some parts appear to have been arranged for a purpose."
Other inconvenient observations which bear inspection : purposefulness and intentionality.
Here is that impermissible notion to the effect: "personality is void of material and therefore personality is not worthy of notable consideration by science "
Following that is dismissal and denial of personal expressions and very often ad hominem character-assassination.
We are forced to confront these challenges which in a more spiritual world might appear trivial or pathetic.
Be prepared which might advise be patient and have pity.
- TruthBeautyGoodness September 6, 2009 4:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
In order to have purposefulness and intentionality you need self-awareness. We are self-aware but where does that come from?
- mike1948 September 6, 2009 9:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
In fact, Behe's claim is either tautological or it is wrong. Tautological because a Darwinian mechanism can never produce 'design' since design is the set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance, in other words design can never include scientific explanations or the design disappears.
But perhaps Behe means that Darwinian mechanisms cannot explain what ID proponents have come to conclude were designed. That of course is a wrong statement because science not only can explain information and complexity, it can also explain perfectly natural pathways to irreducibly complex systems. In a recent change of heart, Behe has attempted, mostly based on overly simplistic arguments that evolution cannot explain certain specific aspects which he calls the "edge of evolution". Examples include a two site binding site. However, once again, Behe presents an overly simplistic strawman of evolution.
I find it troubling how ID scientists have to ignore scientific data and findings to support their claims and instead seem to resort to careful cherry picking of data and facts that suit their purposes. An example is the malaria resistance which Behe argues must have happened in two independent steps without the possibility of intermediates when in fact the opposite is the case as papers in this area have documented. Others have similarly shown how Behe's claims are contradicted by the evidence. So far, ID seems to have ignored these evidences.
And one still wonders why ID is considered to be scientifically vacuous by so many people, including many Christians. As a Christian and as a scientist I am appalled by the lack of scientific content of ID, but I am even more concerned by its dangerous theology which insists that God should be exposed to scientific disproof. After all, is that not what would happen if science were to show how a flagellum evolved? After all, the flagellum is argued to be 'designed' and since the design inference is 100% reliable lest it would be useless (Dembski), any scientific contributions which strengthen the already strong case of how the flagellum could have evolved, would undermine the concept of design, would it not?
Well, not really, after all the concept of design is not about the existence of a designer but about scientific processes being unable to explain a particular system. Surprised? I bet many would be and in fact, many would accept the erroneous claim that disproving ID would disprove God. ID is unable to place any of its hypotheses at any danger since it is an argument based on a negative.
- PvM September 9, 2008 6:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"In fact, Behe's claim is either tautological or it is wrong."
And to think that you accuse US of promoting a false dichotomy. :/
"Tautological because a Darwinian mechanism can never produce 'design' since design is the set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance, in other words design can never include scientific explanations or the design disappears."
So the only "scientific" explanations are ones which refer only to chance, law, or both, but not agency? Care to explain why?
"But perhaps Behe means that Darwinian mechanisms cannot explain what ID proponents have come to conclude were designed."
Pretty sure you can remove "perhaps" from that sentence. Behe spent the entire article explaining why he felt this was the case. He also pointed out why the excitement over the Lenski experiment should only be coming from our side.
"That of course is a wrong statement because science not only can explain information and complexity, it can also explain perfectly natural pathways to irreducibly complex systems."
Assuming that you're referring to materialistic science, I'm very eager to hear you explanation for how the first life emerged without resorting to any form of agency whatsoever.
"In a recent change of heart, Behe has attempted, mostly based on overly simplistic arguments that evolution cannot explain certain specific aspects which he calls the "edge of evolution"."
This is not a "change of heart," Behe has been stating for quite some time now that there are certain aspects of living systems which are beyond the reach of chance and necessity. EoE was just a more detailed explanation for where the edge lies based on data from HIV and whatnot.
"Examples include a two site binding site. However, once again, Behe presents an overly simplistic strawman of evolution."
See the above point. This conclusion was not based on a straw man, it was based on existing data from HIV (which has a mutation rate that some would call the evolutionary speed limit), E. coli, Malaria, etc. Doesn't seem to be any straw man there.
"I find it troubling how ID scientists have to ignore scientific data and findings to support their claims and instead seem to resort to careful cherry picking of data and facts that suit their purposes."
I'll drive the point again for the third time: his conclusions where based on existing data widely cited in the field of biology, if you can direct us all to experiments that show HIV, E. coli, Malaria, etc. are capable of more than what the studies he cites suggest, then it would prove he engaged in cherry picking.
"An example is the malaria resistance which Behe argues must have happened in two independent steps without the possibility of intermediates when in fact the opposite is the case as papers in this area have documented."
Just where on earth did he say it had to happen in two steps? I see in the book right now (hardcover) citing data for how often Malaria gains chloroquine resistance, but where'd you get the claim of a two-step change?
"Others have similarly shown how Behe's claims are contradicted by the evidence. So far, ID seems to have ignored these evidences."
Please show the visitors of this site just what those papers are. Give us some links at least, then I'll believe you.
- F2XL March 5, 2009 6:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"And one still wonders why ID is considered to be scientifically vacuous by so many people, including many Christians."
Yes, I most definitely do wonder why it is held to already have been falsified. What doesn't surprise me is that certain theistic critics happen to resurrect the same tired arguments over and over again. Especially when some of them (such as Ken Miller) decide to use them under oath:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/idea-co-founder-disembowels-ken-millers-strawman /
"As a Christian and as a scientist I am appalled by the lack of scientific content of ID, but I am even more concerned by its dangerous theology which insists that God should be exposed to scientific disproof."
I guess I can believe the christian part, you do seem to be following Ken Miller's model of debate. But why are you accusing ID of bringing god into the debate when clearly articles on this site by ID'ers discourage this, and then you yourself decide to engage in the same thing? No one on here is trying to say that the existence of the judeo-christian god is a scientific question, rather ID claims that it's possible to detect whether or not a feature of the natural world is likely to have arisen by an undirected process or a pre-planned one.
"After all, is that not what would happen if science were to show how a flagellum evolved?"
Have you guys come up with anything better then Matzke co-authoring a paper explaining that parts just popped into existence out of nowhere and just so happening to magically arrange themselves in the right location, the right order, the right changes in function, the right interface-compatibility, etc.
And to answer your question; no, a belief in a supernatural omni-potent entity (which I don't personally have) is not automatically falsified by showing that some particular feature of the natural world can arise without any intelligent intervention. The reason for this is because no one can say for sure how such a god would operate, and if the ONLY thing they would do is create flagella on various cells.
"After all, the flagellum is argued to be 'designed' and since the design inference is 100% reliable lest it would be useless (Dembski), any scientific contributions which strengthen the already strong case of how the flagellum could have evolved, would undermine the concept of design, would it not?"
See the above point.
"Well, not really, after all the concept of design is not about the existence of a designer but about scientific processes being unable to explain a particular system. Surprised?"
Actually it's about what put certain features of the natural world in place.
"I bet many would be and in fact, many would accept the erroneous claim that disproving ID would disprove God."
Not unless they assumed that ID was the only basis for a belief in a god of sorts (which ID'ers are not telling people to assume).
"ID is unable to place any of its hypotheses at any danger since it is an argument based on a negative."
If ID were based on the negative argument that evolution can't produce something, therefore it was design, then ID'ers would insist the rings around Saturn were designed for the same reason since no form of Darwin's theory could produce them. Of course this is not what they would ever even remotely consider, so why assume it's just a matter of contrived dualism?
- F2XL March 9, 2009 9:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Behe claims that "That is not the sort of process one needs to build complex molecular systems." when discussing the experiment by Richard Lenski. What Behe forgets to mention are the actual findings of the research such as
"Over the generations, in fits and starts, the bacteria did indeed evolve into faster breeders. The bacteria in the flasks today breed 75% faster on average than their original ancestor."
and they also showed some interesting findings that show how beneficial/detrimental depends on the environment
"Lenski and his colleagues have also shown how natural selection has demanded trade-offs from the bacteria; while they grow faster on a meager diet of glucose, they've gotten worse at feeding on some other kinds of sugars."
and a remarkable mutation which caused the bacteria to feast on the citrate
"But in one remarkable case, however, they discovered that a flask had turned cloudy without any contamination. It was E. coli chowing down on the citrate. The researchers found that when they put the bacteria in pure citrate, the microbes could thrive on it as their sole source of carbon."
and countering behe's claims, the evidence actually suggested that this was a change in multiple sites, something Behe has argued cannot happen
"This rise and fall and rise suggests that the evolution of citrate-eating was not a one-mutation affair. The first mutation (or mutations) allowed the bacteria to eat citrate, but they were outcompeted by some glucose-eating mutants that still had the upper hand. Only after they mutated further did their citrate-eating become a recipe for success."
In an earlier article in the NY Times, it was reported that these bacteria were not the same ones
"In that time, the bacteria have changed significantly. For one thing, they are bigger — twice as big on average as their common ancestor. They are also far better at reproducing in these flasks, dividing 70 percent faster than their ancestor. These changes have emerged through spontaneous mutations and natural selection, and Dr. Lenski and his colleagues have been able to watch them unfold."
Of course, none of these bacteria evolved into mammals, something hardly expected given the limited timescales involved, however contrary to Behe's claims, these bacteria started to feed on citrate even though such a feat required multiple changes.
It seems clear that even these trivial examples of hard scientific work show not only that ID remains scientifically vacuous but also that ID has to reject and ignore contradicting evidence that shows it to be wrong. What's even worse about ID being scientifically vacuous? In my opinion, ID being wrong and knowing it.
Read more about the experiment first hand at: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/index.html
- PvM September 9, 2008 7:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"Behe claims that "That is not the sort of process one needs to build complex molecular systems." when discussing the experiment by Richard Lenski. What Behe forgets to mention are the actual findings of the research such as
"Over the generations, in fits and starts, the bacteria did indeed evolve into faster breeders. The bacteria in the flasks today breed 75% faster on average than their original ancestor.""
At what cost? Did these new super-breeders need to eliminate some proteins or functions from their systems in order to achieve this ability? Do the faster breeders still have the same efficiency in the functions Lenski describes? What about population size? Despite the rapid breeding, did the population size remain the same, or did they just draw the claim of rapid breeding based on the time it took for new generations to arise?
"and they also showed some interesting findings that show how beneficial/detrimental depends on the environment"
Now that's a spectacular way to cover one's ass when they know they've run into a wall. Just say that the fitness only depends on the environment, and even if they show some losses in their current environment, they would do just fine and possibly even better if we just tried a new set of environmental settings. So I'm assuming that when the nylonase only had 2% the efficiency of typical enzymes, it was because we just didn't have the right environment for the bacteria, am I right?
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:MX7Px_DB75IJ: www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm +nylonase+ evolution +The+new+enzymes+are+very+inefficient+(having+only+2%25+of+the+efficiency+of+the+regular+enzymes)&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
"and a remarkable mutation which caused the bacteria to feast on the citrate"
This is only a fraction of the whole equation, did the bacteria retain the same efficiency? Did it retain the same population levels? Did it have to shed other functions in the process? Without this information we have no way of knowing if anything was gained or lost in this whole process.
"and countering behe's claims, the evidence actually suggested that this was a change in multiple sites, something Behe has argued cannot happen"
I'm assuming your referring to chloroquine resistance and Edge of Evolution? I'm sure it's more than likely to happen, but not without some loss in the original functionality of the organism in question. Speaking of multiple mutations.....
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/ref =cm_blog_blog
Can wait to read the posts that follow....
"In an earlier article in the NY Times, it was reported that these bacteria were not the same ones"
Tell us the article please, just so we can know for sure you're not making this up.
"Of course, none of these bacteria evolved into mammals, something hardly expected given the limited timescales involved, however contrary to Behe's claims, these bacteria started to feed on citrate even though such a feat required multiple changes."
See the previous points. The question at hand is whether or not Darwin's mechanism can produce the "apparent" design in nature. Now for your claim to even be relevant to this question, I would suggest that you give us the full picture and explain whether or not the citrate feeding bacteria retained the same efficiency, breeding rate, and functionality as their earlier counter-parts.
"It seems clear that even these trivial examples of hard scientific work show not only that ID remains scientifically vacuous but also that ID has to reject and ignore contradicting evidence that shows it to be wrong."
It seems clear that even in this discussion you've decided to give answers to questions which you know will fit your accepted conclusion. You give all this talk about a new function evolving while giving no indication as to whether or not the same level of functionality was retained from the original population. I can't say I wonder why the results of the Lenski experiment have been called into question in the first place.
"What's even worse about ID being scientifically vacuous? In my opinion, ID being wrong and knowing it."
Sounds like a theory I know, but it isn't ID.....
- F2XL March 9, 2009 10:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I don't follow Dr. Behe's reasoning in the following:
“For example, humans have acquired a number of helpful genetic changes in our battle with the malarial parasite over the past ten thousand years. The most well-known of these is the sickle cell mutation, which unfortunately can also lead to the lethal side effect of sickle cell disease.”
Let’s look at this: to counter the malarial parasite (presumably, another creation of this benevolent Intelligent Designer), a Designer tinkers over the millennia with our genes to confer partial immunity, but with the side-effect of lethal sickle-cell disease. Way to go!
Where is Ralph Nader when you really need him?
Surely, the imperfect nature of the mechanism here is what we would expect as 'work in progress' from natural selection rather than design?
- Megalonyx September 10, 2008 3:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
It seems that so far ID has focused on malaria and on the bacterial flagellum which shares homology with the type three secretory system, used by bacteria responsible for the bubonic plague. Seems that the designer has quite an interest in punishing humans.
- PvM September 10, 2008 8:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Every time I hear a single word mentioned about the TTSS and that it somehow gives flagellar evolution some credibility I lose a few months off my life span. Well, then again maybe not. I'd be dead by now.
"It seems that so far ID has focused on malaria and on the bacterial flagellum which shares homology with the type three secretory system, used by bacteria responsible for the bubonic plague. Seems that the designer has quite an interest in punishing humans."
So are we asking if a telic force exists or are we trying to psychoanalyze the intentions behind it?
- F2XL March 9, 2009 10:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"I am debating it mainly to create a FAQ sheet for it"
Hilarious.
"I lose a few months off my life span"
The truth will do that to you????
"So are we asking if a telic force exists or are we trying to psychoanalyze the intentions behind it?"
Nope. We are ridiculing the ridiculous. The "negative argument" that " evolution cannot explain that" is ridiculous.
- onein6billion March 11, 2009 8:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Hilarious."
Yeah, I probably shouldn't emulate something that distorts the truth so much. And YES, I'm referring to the talk origins index to creationist claims. ;D
"The truth will do that to you????"
Seeing that people throw it away altogether does make me wonder if what I'm doing is worth the time. And yes, I'm referring to the "TTSS makes flagellum reducibily complex" argument.
"Nope. We are ridiculing the ridiculous."
Whatever that means....
"The "negative argument" that " evolution cannot explain that" is ridiculous."
But what about your opinion on ID?
- F2XL March 11, 2009 11:19AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"But what about your opinion on ID?"
ID is ridiculously and obviously not science . (Hint: we've been here before.)
- onein6billion April 10, 2009 11:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"ID is ridiculously and obviously not science . (Hint: we've been here before.)"
Indeed, you've spent a lot of time saying ID is not science. But talk is cheap, give me a definition of science, explain why science must follow that definition, then explain what characteristics ID has (and why) that exclude it from that criteria.
- F2XL April 13, 2009 11:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"So are we asking if a telic force exists or are we trying to psychoanalyze the intentions behind it?"
Why are these two questions always independent? I would think that any theory of ID that made no attempt to identify and analyze the designer was an incomplete theory. Also, wouldn't a clear theory on the designer (intentions and methods) be very useful in determining what aspects of the biological world were designed, why they were designed that way, and which were evolved.
- MrBook March 11, 2009 5:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Why are these two questions always independent?"
Because science as we know it today can only answer one of them.
"I would think that any theory of ID that made no attempt to identify and analyze the designer was an incomplete theory."
I would think not, since ID only tries to identify the features of the natural world which are designed... and nothing more. Asking questions about the designer are separate from determining if something was planned or not.
"Also, wouldn't a clear theory on the designer (intentions and methods) be very useful in determining what aspects of the biological world were designed, why they were designed that way, and which were evolved."
Maybe, but those questions can be inferred without knowledge of intentions and methods.
- F2XL April 19, 2009 2:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Because science as we know it today can only answer one of them."
Why not? What qualities does the designers have that make them beyond study?
"I would think not, since ID only tries to identify the features of the natural world which are designed... and nothing more. Asking questions about the designer are separate from determining if something was planned or not."
I don't see it that way. A theory quantifying the designers, which could be used to make accurate predictions about their next action, would solidify ID as a working theory. Without that then the argument that random mutation can only go so far, but not further (even when given an arbitrarily long period of time), is still a better discription.
"Maybe, but those questions can be inferred without knowledge of intentions and methods."
I would think that it would be beyond maybe. Knowing the nature of the designers would give a huge amount of insight into why they were designing life on this planet. Knowing the methods would allow us to replicate them in the laboratory.
We could also go and meet them, I know I've several complaints on this body they designed for me that I'd like to have cleared up.
- MrBook April 27, 2009 10:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Why not? What qualities does the designers have that make them beyond study?"
Not being able to directly observe it. Thus conclusions are only drawn based on natural features in question.
"I don't see it that way."
Like it or not, that's the way ID works. It studies what we can observe and draws inferences from there.
"A theory quantifying the designers, which could be used to make accurate predictions about their next action, would solidify ID as a working theory."
Define a "working theory." And your basic point is that unless we can see the telic force in action then we cannot determine if something was the product of one correct?
"Without that then the argument that random mutation can only go so far, but not further (even when given an arbitrarily long period of time), is still a better discription."
So would you say then that sticking with the notion that mutations+selections has its limits is a better theory than saying a guidance of some kind brought some features in question to existence?
"I would think that it would be beyond maybe. Knowing the nature of the designers would give a huge amount of insight into why they were designing life on this planet."
I think we both agree that such knowledge would in fact give us huge insight, but are you also saying it's NECESSARY to know the nature of the intellect in order to identify systems and features as designed?
"Knowing the methods would allow us to replicate them in the laboratory."
Would you then say that ID is not science or is insufficient because it cannot be replicated or repeated?
"We could also go and meet them, I know I've several complaints on this body they designed for me that I'd like to have cleared up."
Yeah same here, much like how I would like to complain to GM for giving their Hummers a MPG of only 10 miles a gallon.
- F2XL April 30, 2009 1:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Let’s look at this: to counter the malarial parasite (presumably, another creation of this benevolent Intelligent Designer), a Designer tinkers over the millennia with our genes to confer partial immunity, but with the side-effect of lethal sickle-cell disease. Way to go!"
Uhhhh.... dude, that's the product of evolutionary processes you're talking about there, and I think you agree they're nothing to brag about.
"Where is Ralph Nader when you really need him?"
Screw him. Where is Ron Paul when you REALLY need him?
"Surely, the imperfect nature of the mechanism here is what we would expect as 'work in progress' from natural selection rather than design?"
It's definitely what we would expect from evolutionary processes. This is not a feature we attribute to design.
- F2XL March 9, 2009 10:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The only thing I take issue with in this argument is the comments about Lenski's work with e. coli. I am not a scientist, but I was able to read Lenski's paper and understand it.
The paper was SPECIFICALLY about how the mutation allowing e. coli to begin metabolizing citrase (the Cit+ mutation) was dependent on some other prior mutation(s) that opened the evolutionary pathway. Lenski published without having identified the exact prior mutation, simply because of how exciting this result is. Let me make this perfectly clear, in case you don't want to read Lenski's paper: The evolution of the Cit+ e. coli required one or more mutations that may not have affected the survivability of the e. coli population.
This means that e. coli which was unable to eat citrates, mutated at least twice, changing it's chemical nanotechnology once, in a manner that may not have affected the survivability of the population, then later, a mutation allowed the bacteria to make use of an alternate food source.
This experiment IS the 'smoking gun.' We have observed evolution in the lab. We can repeat it. We can make predictions based on it.
Darwinian evolutionary science does not explain design, because it was never meant to. It explains exactly what we see, in the fossil record, in our own DNA, and now, in the lab: Small inheritable random variations accumulate over vast numbers of generations to modify organisms, raising the possibility of their gene's survival to the maximum.
- PStryder September 15, 2008 2:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Mr. Behe makes two key claims in this short essay.
1) That mutations "tended to be degradative changes, ones which destroyed genes or made them less efficient."
which he uses as an argument to his conclusion, that
2) "Darwin’s mechanism of random mutation and natural selection does not mimic design"
However, there is a fundamental flaw in Mr. Behe's reasoning in regards to the first point, which leads to his erroneous conclusion.
All mutations can be regarded as 'degradative' in some sense, but they are constructive in a different sense, because mutations involve a fitness trade-off. We know a prori that E. coli is very well adapted to its natural habitat. After 3.5 billion years of evolution, it is unfathomably unlikely that in .00000001 % of that time we will see natural selection produce and adaptation that is a pareto improvement on the function of E. coli, that is: an improvement with no cost.
The only reason we see any beneficial mutations whatsoever is because we are placing E. coli in an evolutionarily novel habitat, where some of E. coli's genes are unnecessary, and where it lacks some functions which would be beneficial.
By way of analogy, if I took a coat hanger from my closet, bent it, and turned it into a well formed T.V. antenna, I would have greatly decreased the hangers ability to hold a coat. But if I don't need a coat hanger, and I do need an antenna, it is difficult to see how we can describe transforming a coat hanger into an antenna as "degradative", since the antenna has a highly specified from that looks just as designed as the coat hanger.
If I choose to regard all improvements which are not pareto improvement as 'degradative', then I would not expect to ever find evidence for evolution. Evolution works by making trade offs, destroying one thing to make a more immediately useful thing.
So, because Mr. Behe confuses the kinds of improvements that natural selection makes with universal improvements in function. Because of this he sees no evidence for natural selection's ability to improve organismal function.
The key test of Mr. Behe's characterization of the E. coli's cit+ mutations as 'degradative' will come when the mutations are fully characterized and we discover whether or not the novel proteins, which have unarguably be created by natural selection, function efficiently for cit+ metabolism.
Putatively, I believe, a gene duplication has occurred, such that the cit+ E. coli have not lost any ancestral function.
When these mutations are characterized and we have again documented natural selection creating novel cellular machinery, it may aid in preserving Mr. Behe credibility if he acknowledges that natural selection can create efficient cellular machinery.
- Matthew Ackerman September 19, 2008 5:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
is a common creationist position which misunderstand that most mutations are mostly neutral, few are strongly detrimental and some are beneficial. Now remember that the definition of the effect of mutations depends strongly on the environment, and that what is beneficial or detrimental or neutral in one environment can take on a different 'shape' in another environment.
In general, mutations or more commonly known as variations, are incredibly important for evolution, since without such variation, evolution would not be able to do much of anything. So, in fact, variation is an important component to evolutionary theory and mutations are one way of variation to increase, but other mechanisms such as recombination can also increase the variation in the species by mixing and matching parts of genomes.
This is one reason why Behe's claims about the edge of evolution are so poorly supported by fact and theory. Behe argues for instance that evolution is unable to explain two or more mutations because he insists that they have to happen at the same time. His argument is that intermediates do not exist and if they do, they do not have any beneficial advantage and thus are impervious to selection. So let's explore this with an example in which a mutation A and B are necessary for a particular beneficial event to happen (such as malaria resistance) and lets assume that A and B by themselves have near neutral fitness contributions in a particular environment. In Behe's world, this would mean that a population either has AB mutation or neither A nor B. However in reality, we know that populations exhibit a significant variability in which there will be some that will have a mutation A and others a mutation B but since these mutations are by themselves neutral, they can only spread to fixation via drift. This means small populations or a bottle neck or a selective sweep.
However since A or B are already part of a subset of the population, all they need is another mutation event B or A, to suddenly expose a strongly selective advantage. The probability of such an event can be increased when A or B has come to fixation piggy backing on another selective event.
Not only does this affect Behe's simplistic calculcations but in real life we actually have evidence of the existence of the many intermediates between no resistance to to full resistance. In other words, we can observe the individual steps through which this resistance could have evolved. In other words, the suggestion that intermediates are without any selective value is shown to be erroneous.
As to gene duplication and co-option, the reason why we see evolution re-using so many 'modules' is simple. Evolving a system of n components can reduce to a log(n) time when modules are re-used. So in case of 1000 components, this would reduce the time from O(n) to O(log n) or from 10^n to n. Not a bad reduction in time would you not agree? This was what Herbert Simon argued in his early 20th century papers on complexity and modularity. And one should not be surprised that we have found at many levels of life, that scale free networks and hierarchical networks govern.
- PvM September 19, 2008 9:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I apologize for using misleading wording. You are right in that the majority of mutation appear to have little or no effect on survival in most organisms. My point was simply that any mutation which does produce a notable prototypic effect (which is simply any mensurable change for any non-biologist out there), can be viewed as a negative change in some particular environment. For organisms with very simple and efficient genomes well adapted to a particular environment that change will likely be a negative one in their ancestral environment.
Kudos on dragging out the statistical fallacies in Mr. Behe's most recent popular work.
I find your reference to Simon work particularly fascinating. Whether serial duplication would be useful or not depends on whether there is any similarity between various good designs, which there empirically are for almost any designed object I can think of. In conclusion, scale free networks are cool.
- Matthew Ackerman September 19, 2008 3:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Prototypic should read phenotypic. Darn spell checker.
- Matthew Ackerman September 19, 2008 3:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
as much as Behe's somewhat misleading
--Yet, when Lenski tracked down the mutations, they tended to be degradative changes, ones which destroyed genes or made them less efficient. That is not the sort of process one needs to build complex molecular systems.--
Your comments showed that you also understand that fitness is not determined by a single cause/effect. For instance, while some mutations may cause a fitness decrease in one aspect of the organism and an increase in another, the overall effect may thus be very well positive. To call the change degenerative misses the point.
I hope to report more on Hubert Simon's work, quite interesting.
- PvM September 19, 2008 7:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"For example, humans have acquired a number of helpful genetic changes in our battle with the malarial parasite over the past ten thousand years. The most well-known of these is the sickle cell mutation, which unfortunately can also lead to the lethal side effect of sickle cell disease. Other mutations that are helpful in the fight with malaria also degrade or destroy genes, such as globin genes and the genes for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, pyruvate kinase, Duffy antigen, and Band 3 protein."
I wanted to clarify two points in this paragraph, first 'a number' is a little vague – there’s a lot. For example, over 160 G6PD deficiency variants have been categorised worldwide, these are just the common ones people have bothered publishing on. Dozens of other genes have been highlighted in candidate gene and linkage studies.
Second, Sickle is famous because of the nasty disease/geographical distribution but there are at other goblin variants that cause fewer symptoms. It is maintained in the population because it is so effective at preventing malaria. Much of the variation linked to malaria susceptibility has more modest effects.
Third, some variants modulate function without causing any health problems, for example Duffy negative variant - which prevents expression only on red blood cells, but not other cell types, and causes no health problems. That’s more than throwing a spanner into the machine, its targeting a promoter sequence with a rather subtle change.
Fourth, some variants altering malaria susceptibility - generate or boost function - variation at the MHC locus, ABO glycosyltransferase or hereditary hypersplenism. It is even possible that selection for surviving the metabolic challenge of severe malaria, has inadvertently selected for the athletic abilities of African populations – but that’s more speculative!.
- Pantrog September 19, 2008 3:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
for educating us about the immense scientific amount of information that seldomly gets disseminated when ID proponents claim that 'x' could not have evolved. It's this lack of sufficient familiarity with the prevailing knowledge which has rendered ID so meaningless. Whether it is the poor scholarship by Wells or the meaningless arguments by Behe, they all seem to come down to a similar commonality: a lack of full understanding of the scientific knowledge and evidence.
How does ID explain the malaria resistance or the bacterial flagellum? We already know how poorly ID has done with the flagellum, now that science keeps unraveling facts in support of predictions made several years earlier by Nick Matzke.
- PvM September 19, 2008 7:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Remember Nick Matzke? A few years ago, he outlined based on an extensive study of the scientific literature and homology studies a plausible scenario for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum.
The title was "Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum"
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
In this article, Nick outlined various predictions and now we have received the exciting news that science has found supporting evidence for his predictions
Another touch down for science.
Mark Pallen, one of several experts, has written two articles in which he outlines not only how ID has remained scientifically without content in describing the bacterial flagellum, the hallmark evidence of design according to ID, but also how science has developed a level of knowledge which has removed yet another cloud of ignorance, and thus further dismantling the 'design inference'.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/09/mark-pallen-on.html
When will ID proponents admit that Behe was wrong and that 'design' has been disproven?
Dispatches from the cutting edge of flagellar biology, part 1
http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/09/dispatches-from-cutting-edge-of.html
Dispatches from the cutting edge of flagellar biology, part 2
http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/09/dispatches-from-cutting-edge-of_17.html
--
In 2003, Nick Matzke (then at the NCSE and so a couple of years later science adviser to the plaintiffs in the Dover trial) wrote an essay summarising plausible evolutionary scenarios for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. He noted a couple of previous suggestions that the proto-flagellum might have originated from the F-type ATPase. Crucially, he predicted that additional homologies would be found between components of the F-type ATPase and the flagellar protein export apparatus, for example between the b subunit of the ATPase and FliH and between the delta subunit and FliJ.
In 2006, I confirmed one of Nick's hunches through homology searches, showing that part of FliH was homologous to the b subunit. However, things turned out slightly different from Nick's predictions in that FliH is actual of a fusion of domains homologous to the b subunit and the delta subunit.
Last year Namba's group published the structure of FliI and confirmed the striking homology with the F-type ATPase enzymatic subunits. At that stage in the game, it had become clear that the ATPase was a universal component not just of flagellar export systems but also of non-flagellar type III secretion systems. Also, if it was also clear that if one knocked out the gene for FliI, one abolished flagellar biosynthesis. Thus, just about everyone in the field accepted that FliI was an essential component of the flagellar apparatus and that it energised secretion of proteins through the protein export system. In other words, if there were anything to the idea, put forward by Behe and others in the ID movement, that the flagellum showed "irreducible complexity", even experts might have accepted that FliI was one of the "irreducible" components!!
BUT earlier this year, Minamino and Namba (and independently a team headed by Kelly Hughes in the US) overturned all our assumptions by showing that it was perfectly possible to make flagella without FliI--what you needed to do was knock out FliH at the same time. Somehow or other FliH, which usually interacts with FliI, gums up the export apparatus in the absence of FliI. So, bang goes another pillar of support for the ID argument! In fact, it appears that flagellar protein export is powered not primarily by the ATPase by the proton-motive force.
..
He provided a run through of all the work leading up to his recent Nature article on the dispensibility of FliI. I was then very proud to see him cite my paper on the FliH/F-type ATPase homology. But then he provided the final piece in the jigsaw (and Nick Matzke's ears should prick up at this point)!
Namba and colleagues have now solved the structure of FliJ, another protein that interacts with FliI and FliH. And what they found was clear evidence of homology with yet another protein from the F-type ATPase--the gamma subunit!
--
So in other words, science supported two predictions by Nick Matzke and showed how Flil was not an essential part of flagellar function, even though knocking it out would prevent the flagellum from forming, when in addition to Flil also FliH was knocked out, the flagellum formed.
What a day in history
- PvM September 19, 2008 7:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Science was able to intelligently design flagellar function.
- jaker277 May 27, 2009 7:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Science did not design the functionality, scientists observed the functionality and developed theories on how it function / how that function came about.
- MrBook May 28, 2009 7:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
--Behe--
If “scientific merit” is judged by the correspondence between theory and physical reality, then the theory of intelligent design rates very strongly.
--
There is no theory of ID, what's so hard to understand here. The concept of "purposeful arrangement of parts" is at best a restatement of Paley's argument and fails to recognize scientific explanations. As to the flagellum simulations, let's make sure that it is actually based on the actual pictures rather than a stylized representation. After all, we do not want to pretend that the physical reality looks like a cartoon.
- PvM September 9, 2008 9:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
the physical reality to which Behe so proudly points is a stylized cartoon of reality. Sure we can make designed things look designed but the actual flagellum hardly looks like the strawmen pictures by ID. Since ID seems to want to make its argument based on the similarity between a non-existent theory and physical reality, it seems to me that there are some 'minor' wrinkles to be worked out.
- PvM September 9, 2008 9:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Design is recognized in the purposeful arrangement of parts, "
Storms - tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.. - are machines. They are made up of many necessary, purposefully-arranged parts, they are described explicitly by scientists as engines, they are irreducibly complex, they have countless more molecules than a cell, they are in their own ways as complicated and intricate as a cell, they cannot be replicated in a lab, they have all the hallmarks that Behe claims precludes any natural origin. But they arise spontaneously all the time.
Behe's argument amounts to "it looks that way to me, thus design". This argument fails on so many levels. The matter of meteorological phenomena is but one example that reveals the weakness of the ID position.
- Arthur Hunt September 10, 2008 7:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I'm sorry but this argument of "design is apparent, not real" always make me scratch my head in bewilderment.Its like, we see the design with our own eyes but it can't be real because we refuse to believe in a designer.
You were right about one thing Arthur Hunt. Storms- tornadoes, hurricanes, etc are machines with engines.
It always has been and always will be impossible to have a design without a designer. Truth doesn't stop being truth just because you don't believe it. Just because something arises spontaneously doesn't disprove a designer.
- ICDESIGN September 11, 2008 2:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
--
It always has been and always will be impossible to have a design without a designer. Truth doesn't stop being truth just because you don't believe it. Just because something arises spontaneously doesn't disprove a designer
--
true, but as science has shown, the designer need not always be an intelligent entity and in fact, this confusion about design which lies at the foundation of apparent versus actual design has not been resolved by the eliminative approach chosen by ID. It has nothing to do with a believe in a designer, a perhaps innate, evolved aspect of humans, but all to do with what is scientifically supportable. Needless to say, we do not use ID's approaches to infer design since such an approach would be inherently unreliable.
- PvM September 11, 2008 2:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
...all design is intelligent. It takes thought to construct any type of design. When you see things take place in science they happen because of all the laws that were put into place by an intelligent designer.
Going back to the idea of a storm and engines. When you get in a car and turn the key you have a spontaneous violent storm erupt inside the engine. It all takes place because of all the elements of the design working in concert to produce the effect. This and all design require
intelligent thought.
- ICDESIGN September 11, 2008 8:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
--ICDEsig--
...all design is intelligent.
--
But since ID defines design to include non-intelligent designers, there appears to be a problem
Clever trick eh, making people believe they are talking about intelligent design when they cannot exclude natural selection for instance as a designer.
- PvM September 12, 2008 9:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
...we absolutely exclude natural selection as a designer!
the real trick is convincing the public that macro-evolution is a scientific fact when it has never been observed which is a requirement for science.
I don't know where you get your information but I don't know any ID people who include non-ID as part of their belief system.
Lets do this sir. Lets bring it home to where we live. If the human body is not an intelligent design then you tell me what is the definition for an intelligent design.
'WHAT' IS A INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND 'WHY' IS YOUR EXAMPLE AN INTELLIGENT DESIGN? simple straight forward question.
what is your simple straight forward answer?
bet you can't do it
- ICDESIGN September 12, 2008 10:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
--ICDesign--
'WHAT' IS A INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND 'WHY' IS YOUR EXAMPLE AN INTELLIGENT DESIGN? simple straight forward question. what is your simple straight forward answer? bet you can't do it
--
You should not be a betting man when you are bluffing so obviously (hint: all caps).
You ask some good questions and since you 'see design', you may be horrified to find out how the Intelligent Design movement has defined design to be nothing more than the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance" or that which remains once one has eliminate regularity of chance hypotheses.
Shocked?... I bet but things get worse, in order to go from design to 'designer', the ID movement uses induction, which of course has its usual problems
---Ryan Nichols--
Before I proceed, however, I note that Dembski makes an important concession to his critics. He refuses to make the second assumption noted above. When the EF implies that certain systems are intelligently designed, Dembski does not think it follows that there is some intelligent designer or other. He says that, "even though in practice inferring design is the first step in identifying an intelligent agent, taken by itself design does not require that such an agent be posited. The notion of design that emerges from the design inference must not be confused with intelligent agency"
--
The notion of design should not be confuse with intelligent agency. Now how many ID proponents or enthusiasts are familiar with this hidden gem?
Let's give an example of (failed) intelligent design.
When Newton arrived at his laws of motion, he was shocked when he realized that the orbits of planets could not possibly be stable. To 'explain' the stable orbits, Newton invoked a "helping hand" of God. Only when Laplace, some half a century later, realized Newton's mistakes, was the necessity of said intelligent designer removed.
Newton's appeal to design is based on what ID proponents have come to define as the "design inference".
This should teach us once and for all that an appeal to design, when lacking anything more than ignorance, is not very reliable, historically speaking.
Does this help? Do you have a paypal account? Oh what the heck, this one is on me...
;-)
- PvM September 12, 2008 11:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
If something can arise spontaneously, then a designer certainly isn't proven--what is proven is that a designer is unnecessary.
I firmly believe that you should be able to believe whatever you want about god/religion, but on the other hand, once it's established that a designer is unnecessary, it does not serve anyone to say "because we don't know this, this, and this, therefore it must mean there was a supernatural force that set it in motion, and we should stop looking for the answer."
Irreducible complexity was shattered a couple of decades ago. Since then, we've answered previously unknown questions about eyes, missing links, plant buds, and all the other gaps. If we had stopped looking, we wouldn't know--and that, I think, is the true danger of Intelligent Design. It not only halts knowledge, it canonizes ignorance.
- sharky September 24, 2008 5:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I would if I could. My grounds for objection are very simple: This is not an argument.
The whole post from Mr Behe can be boiled down to, "since things are complex, they must be designed."
In another post I said that ID wasn't a theory, it was an untested hypothesis. It seems I was giving it too much credit. It's an unfinished hypothesis.
What features of the complexity of the cell points to intelligent design? How does the complexity of the cell point to intelligent design? These are the kinds of questions you should be answering with this argument.
Please, someone object to this argument, or give me the ability to do so.
- PStryder September 15, 2008 7:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm not a cell expert but lets expand out to the human body. Do you consider the systems that make up your body to be intelligent in function PSTRYDER?
- ICDESIGN September 15, 2008 9:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I'm not a cell expert either, and understanding what Behe wrote in his argument doesn't require it, because he didn't say anything except "Cellular machinery is complex, therefore it must be designed."
This isn't an argument, it's a statement. To make it an argument, he would have to say, "Cellular machinery is complex, and these examples of complexity make me think it is designed." Then he would speak to each of those examples in detail, explaining why their complexity indicates design, and is not better explained through some other mechanism. That would be an argument.
ICDESIGN, I have had these discussions, representing both sides, too many times to be derailed by your question. Discuss Behe's argument with me, but don't try to lead me astray with questions outside the purview of the topic at hand.
- PStryder September 16, 2008 9:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
-but don't try to lead me astay-
I wanted to try and lead to the truth from being astray
actually. I think Behe has made the case for obvious
design within the cell and I don't think you will find
anyone who could put it any more clear. The evidence is everywhere its just a matter of where you want to put your faith. Good luck on your journey.
- ICDESIGN September 16, 2008 10:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
--ICDESIGN
I think Behe has made the case for obvious design within the cell and I don't think you will find
anyone who could put it any more clear.
--
I find Behe's 'arguments' while probably most relevant to design in nature, also to suffer from a significant flaw, an inability to deal with new scientific findings that undermine his claims.
Note for instance Nick Matzke's contributions on this forum, and note the absence of much of any response. ID has consistently avoided dealing with the socalled 'controversy' in a scientific fashion and instead seems to insist on invading our public schools under the guise of academic freedom.
- PvM September 16, 2008 11:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Hi PvM, they finally got things straightened out.
As far as scientific findings go the numbers of evolution
believing scientist's is on a major decline. The more
technology is able to understand the more everyone will have to abandon the primitive thinking of evolutionary
theory (theory being the key word). When scientists become brave enough to follow the evidence wherever it leads they will land on God's doorstep. 30 years from now
it will be embarrassing for anyone to admit to being an
evolutionist.
- ICDESIGN September 16, 2008 12:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
--ICDESIGN
As far as scientific findings go the numbers of evolution believing scientist's is on a major decline.
--
Historically such predictions have failed to come true time after time. In fact, the theory of evolution is getting stronger and stronger. So I have to reject your unsupported and wishful thinking.
--ICDESIGN
The more technology is able to understand the more everyone will have to abandon the primitive thinking of evolutionary theory (theory being the key word). When scientists become brave enough to follow the evidence wherever it leads they will land on God's doorstep. 30 years from now
it will be embarrassing for anyone to admit to being an evolutionist.
--
Stop embarrassing yourself with these predictions, there is no reason to come to such a conclusion. Surely you would not want to portray such a foolish notion?
But I do understand that the facts, may be somewhat disturbing to some religious people who have not only come to misunderstand evolutionary theory as being anti-God but worse are willing to go on the record with foolish statements. That just makes us Christians look well, 'foolish'
- PvM September 16, 2008 1:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
--I think Behe has made the case for obvious
design within the cell and I don't think you will find
anyone who could put it any more clear.
--
Actually, Behe did not offer a case for intelligent design in his argument, posted on this website. (Let me make PERFECTLY clear, this is all I am discussing.) He simply offered his conclusion; because cellular machinery is complex, it is designed. He offers no evidence, no data, and no sembelence of a coherent argument.
--The evidence is everywhere its just a matter of where you want to put your faith. --
Science != faith. Faith !=science
The evidence is NOT everywhere. The DATA is everywhere. Evidence is data that is used to support your hypothesis, which makes predictions of future experimental results, or data that will be discovered at a later date.
Behe offers no DATA to support his hypothesis; which make no predictions. ID does not meet the criteria to be a theory, it barely meets the criteria to be an unfinished hypothesis.
- PStryder September 16, 2008 6:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Ok whatever dude. Let me also be clear I really don't care what you can or cannot see or want to talk about.
ICDESIGN of a genius everywhere I look. If you don't that's your loss man.
As I said b4, good luck on your journey and goodbye.
- ICDESIGN September 16, 2008 8:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
ICDESIGN is suddenly not interested in hearing about science anymore. Denial, a first step towards recovery. Just wait till the anger phase, that's the tricky one as many have come to reject faith during that phase.
All because of insisting that ID should be able to prove the existence of God. What happened to good old faith? Do we insist that God reveals us to us in person, just like 'doubting Thomas' before we accept His existence?
I am shocked.
- PvM September 16, 2008 9:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
--
What features of the complexity of the cell points to intelligent design? How does the complexity of the cell point to intelligent design? These are the kinds of questions you should be answering with this argument.
--
The ID proponent would argue: the fact that it is complex (in other words, science cannot explain it) and 'specified' where it matches some independent pattern. In biology, function seems to be sufficient for something to be specified, so mostly anything that would arise via the processes of evolution and would not yet be fully understood would be called design.
Hope this clarifies.
- PvM September 15, 2008 9:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I asked the questions to give Mr Behe a hint about how to formulate a proper argument.
I am well familiar with the thought process of the ID proponents, having at one time been one myself. Of course, I grew out of it before I graduated high school. (and no, it was not because my teacher, pawn of the evil scientist cabal to keep creation science hidden, converted me. It was because I did my own research and thinking and most importantly, i followed the data.)
- PStryder September 16, 2008 10:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I was using your rhetorical question to attempt to get a discussion going. Seems ID proponents have mostly abandoned this thread :-)
- PvM September 16, 2008 10:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It always devolves to this when talking to ID proponents. They say they are not pushing a religious agenda, but you see from the arguments and the posts, they always fall back on faith.
Just in case any ID proponents are reading, no matter what you believe, say, or have been told, faith != evidence. And belief != science. And vice versa.
- PStryder September 16, 2008 6:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Hasn't anybody here read a molecular cell biology textbook? The machinery of the cell is a Rube Goldberg apparatus. If it was designed, the designer went to a lot of trouble to make it look undesigned.
One can compare what designed and undesigned systems look like. For example, some complex electronic circuits are designed by engineers and others are created through the use of adaptive programs that amount to artificial versions of natural selection. Both kinds of circuits work, but they have distinctly different characteristics. The designed circuits tend to be less tolerant of malfunctions than the evolved circuits and it's much harder to figure out how the undesigned circuits work. In other words, when nature is examined, it appears to be undesigned. This is a positive finding, not a inference.
None of this will convince the ID folks, of course, because they are irrational religionists.
- Jim Harrison September 16, 2008 9:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
and minimize the ad hominems and IDers will listen. Your comments are valid, and describe a valid distinction between systems designed by evolution and by intelligent designers.
I'd hate to see your case weakened.
- PvM September 16, 2008 10:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I believe arguments from the opposing camps that say 'it looks like it was designed, so it must have been designed' and 'natural selection could have produced it, so we believe natural selection did produce it' are not going to lead to resolution of this issue.
The real question is - Is there any direct evidence that a particular feature actually was designed, or on the other hand, direct evidence that it arose through natural selection? This is clearly a very difficult question or to answer when the events took place long ago (pace YECs)
On the ID side, I'm not aware of any evidence that any feature of any organism actually was designed. This would require evidence that a) designers existed b) they visited earth and c) they intervened in the modification of life.
On the evolution by natural selection side, likewise I'm not aware if there is any evidence that a significant new feature, such as the human brain, actually did evolve this way.
I think at the moment it's impossible to demonstrate either of these with direct evidence.
So for me the next question is - in the absence of direct evidence either way, is it possible to say whether or not ID has merit?
I think it is. This is because, as I understand it, ID makes no proposals as to the nature of the designers, when and how they designed life, why they don't appear to be around today, and what their own origin was. This means it is not really a theory, more a kind of problem statement.
For evolution by natural selection, there is a proposed mechanism, which has been proven to work on small scale changes (point mutations). Other mechanisms are known that can modify the genome on a larger scale. Natural selection therefore doesn't have the blank spaces that ID does, and in my view has the right to be called a theory.
- Rich Townsend September 17, 2008 4:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Behe asserts:
"Design is recognized in the purposeful arrangement of parts"
Who decides if an "arrangement of parts" is "purposeful"? What does "purposeful" really mean in that statement? Do the parts have "purpose"? Does the "arrangement" have purpose? Did the designer have "purpose"? If I take an old wristwatch and remove all the springs and gears and arrange them in a circle, is the circle designed? If I throw them in a heap, are all of the parts of the watch no longer designed? If I pick up some metal shavings off of the floor from under the lathe in the machine shop and arrange them into a complicated mathematical pattern that I generated using a computer program, can you tell if this is a "purposeful design" or just a "random design"?
Is a virus designed? A prion? A fragment of RNA? A benzene molecule? How can you tell?
Waving your hands and saying "I know design when I see it" and "all life was obviously designed" just won't cut it. Your religious motives in assuming your religious designer are too obvious to allow your judgment to go unquestioned.
Behe further asserts:
"and the cell exhibits the most profound purposeful arrangement of parts in the universe".
There you go again, using that word "purposeful". Well, it's really good "public relations" to appeal to religious people with such an assertion. But scientists are unimpressed. Maybe cells and prions and lifeforms have a "purpose" - to grow and reproduce and evolve - but unless you can show that there is really a "need" for a designer, there is no reason to assume that there was one. So your task remains impossible - "prove" that evolution cannot have produced "this" over the last 3 billion years. Go back 3 billion years and prove that a "cell" did not evolve from something simpler? Or wave your hands and say "I don't believe it could have happened"?
- onein6billion September 21, 2008 3:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Who decides if an "arrangement of parts" is "purposeful"? What does "purposeful" really mean in that statement? Do the parts have "purpose"?"
If there is some form of synergy in the arrangement then yes, that would be purposeful.
"Is a virus designed? A prion? A fragment of RNA? A benzene molecule?"
Any of them can be a possibility.
"How can you tell?"
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1203
"Waving your hands and saying "I know design when I see it" and "all life was obviously designed" just won't cut it."
Agreed, though that is nowhere near the approach ID takes with Biology (or anything else).
"Your religious motives in assuming your religious designer are too obvious to allow your judgment to go unquestioned."
PvM tried to make this same claim but it remains unfounded to this day. Maybe you can change that? See these discussions and join in: http://www.opposingviews.com/comments/sorry-about-my-prior-views
"There you go again, using that word "purposeful"."
I defined purposeful earlier in this comment. For detail on the cell, see the following:
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/tprojects/6850.html
"Maybe cells and prions and lifeforms have a "purpose" - to grow and reproduce and evolve - but unless you can show that there is really a "need" for a designer, there is no reason to assume that there was one."
I think he already took care of that one.
"So your task remains impossible - "prove" that evolution cannot have produced "this" over the last 3 billion years. Go back 3 billion years and prove that a "cell" did not evolve from something simpler? Or wave your hands and say "I don't believe it could have happened"?"
Seems like the burden of proof goes both ways. If Behe cannot "prove" it didn't happen then there's no reason to believe one can prove that it did.
- F2XL November 6, 2008 8:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"We detect design by looking for the tell-tale signs that an intelligent agent acted. Intelligent agents tend to produce specified complexity when they act."
Riiiight. Well "specified complexity" is a nonsense phrase to confuse the rubes. And apparently "tell-tale signs" are also in the eye of the beholder.
"the animation illustrates unseen molecular mechanisms and the ones they trigger, specifically how white blood cells sense and respond to their surroundings and external stimuli."
So what? This is simply known science. There is no "tell-tale sign" of an "intelligent agent". Not in the eye of this beholder anyway.
"Seems like the burden of proof goes both ways."
Nope. Science is reality. Reality is science. If science can explain reality without resorting to a miracle or the supernatural, then science is satisfactory. If you think science is not satisfactory, then the burden of proof is on you to show that it is not satisfactory. But if the "supernatural" is "outside science", then your only chance is to show that there are some observed events (miracles) that cannot be explained by science. This is an argument from ignorance. If science cannot (yet?) explain this, then it must be a miracle caused by a supernatural entity.
If science can explain it and ID can also explain it, then science is preferred because ID introduces an unnecessary element. So the burden of proof is on ID to show that the extra element is necessary.
- onein6billion November 7, 2008 6:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Riiiight. Well "specified complexity" is a nonsense phrase to confuse the rubes."
How so?
"And apparently "tell-tale signs" are also in the eye of the beholder."
If you say so. Synergy sounds like a pretty universal sign to me.
"So what? This is simply known science. There is no "tell-tale sign" of an "intelligent agent". Not in the eye of this beholder anyway."
If evolution cannot produce such a mechanism, what are we to conclude?
"Nope. Science is reality. Reality is science. If science can explain reality without resorting to a miracle or the supernatural, then science is satisfactory."
So ID is science. Good to know.
"But if the "supernatural" is "outside science", then your only chance is to show that there are some observed events (miracles) that cannot be explained by science."
What does the "supernatural" have to do with this? And I agree that if you can find something evolution cannot produce, and it is characteristic of a designed system then ID gains merit.
"This is an argument from ignorance. If science cannot (yet?) explain this, then it must be a miracle caused by a supernatural entity."
No it isn't:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1159
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1167
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/dover_trial_miller_argues_from_ignorance.html
"If science can explain it and ID can also explain it, then science is preferred because ID introduces an unnecessary element. So the burden of proof is on ID to show that the extra element is necessary."
And if science can't explain it?
- F2XL November 9, 2008 11:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Intelligent design works off positive predictions about where experience tells us that intelligent design is the cause at work."
Meaningless nonsense, of course. Name a "prediction".
"complex (i.e. irreducibly complex) biological structures are unexplained, but rather that they are in principle unexplainable"
And that statement has been refuted. You can't "prove" that evolution can't explain "this". Mainly because it can.
"If at least some pseudogenes have unsuspected functions,"
Of course Behe ignored the original point and changed the subject to something irrelevant.
"And if science can't explain it?"
If science can't explain it yet, then science will continue to explore alternatives. ID is merely a useless "dead end" to try to allow creationists to claim that evolution might be wrong.
- onein6billion November 9, 2008 1:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Meaningless nonsense, of course. Name a "prediction"."
It's funny because I already named some, provided resources to find them, and yet you seemed to dodge the argument altogether:
http://www.opposingviews.com/comments/id-is-science (see the three links from the first comment and please respond there)
"And that statement has been refuted. You can't "prove" that evolution can't explain "this"."
If that were true then you wouldn't be able prove evolution can explain it either. And I'm interesting in what refutations to irreducibility your referring to, feel free to cite Ken Miller or Nick Matzke. I highly doubt you know of anything I haven't heard before.
"Mainly because it can."
Prove it.
"Of course Behe ignored the original point and changed the subject to something irrelevant."
So he brings up pseudogenes in one sentence in a paragraph ABOUT pseudogenes, and you say that's changing the subject??? What was the original point in that case?
"If science can't explain it yet, then science will continue to explore alternatives."
Nothing wrong with that.
ID is merely a useless "dead end"..."
While Evolution simply declares all problems solved without further notice.
"...to try to allow creationists to claim that evolution might be wrong."
Explain how "creationists" are relevant to this discussion.
- F2XL November 10, 2008 9:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"It's funny because I already named some, provided resources to find them, and yet you seemed to dodge the argument altogether:"
followed by the usual nonsense.
No real scientist would concede that those are actually "predictions". They are just dishonest attempts to claim that recent scientific discoveries are in agreement with the nonsense called " intelligent design ". And no real scientist claims that these discoveries are a problem for evolution. So, as usual, your dishonest "authorities" are not real authorities at all.
Now, tiktaalik, that was a prediction.
- onein6billion November 11, 2008 10:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Not all this link was identified in my last reply:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1203
Hope it works this time.
- F2XL November 6, 2008 8:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Actually, the construction of the cell rather suggests chance. Mitochondria have their own DNA. It's not even specific to the organism it's in--my mitochondrial DNA matches my families', sure, but you couldn't tell the difference between my sister's and mine.
Why would a designer design one organism within another organism? And why would he do this common, foreign cellular power source for animals, fungi, and plants? That speaks much less of "design" and more of "chance"--other organisms at some point, before the construction of cell walls, formed symbiotic or perhaps just very good parasitic relationships with primitive mitochondria.
- sharky September 24, 2008 5:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
--Jay--
That means that anyone who dares speak of purpose or design within science or when discussing scientific evidence ceases to be a scientist.
---
And yet ID also claims that historical sciences deal succesfully in detecting design, so in fact purpose or design can, as ID argues, be established using methodological naturalism. So why is ID different? Because they want to replace or extend MN by something 'supernatural', however since the supernatural lacks as an explanation, they have to confuse the issue by making flawed claims about science rejecting design and purpose at all cost.
Jay's argument fails even worse when discussing Newton or Keppler stating
--Methodological naturalism, for instance, would exclude most of the founders of modern science, including Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton. That should strike you as fishy.--
And yet, these people were following methodological naturalism, except in the case when Newton believed that his inability to understand the stability of orbits of planets was best explained by an Intelligent Designer interfering regularly to correct their orbits. It took half a decade or so for LaPlace to correct this flawed 'design inference'.
Openmindedness does not mean that one should accept any argument that's more closer to a concept better know as gullibility. Is there evidence for ID in nature. Surely ID does not really tell, all they do is call our ignorance 'design' and then conflate the terminology with how people more commonly interpret this terminology. Bait and switch. Lacking any foundation that constrains their hypothesis, ID is doomed to scientific irrelevance, and anyone openminded would have to admit this. In fact, several ID proponents have admitted to the lack of a foundation for ID.
So it is clear that Jay is wrong to argue that science rejects design a-priori, After all, the Discovery Institute argues that ID must be science because other sciences also infer design. So, for science to reject ID, it must be because it fails to contribute. Not because it is wrong, it is not even that, it's just vacuous.
Is intelligent design science? Does it matter? ID lacks any non trivial scientific contribution, other than perhaps making the flawed claim that science and methodological naturalism somehow deny purpose and design or that MN would reject Newton and Keppler. Anyone familiar with these people would realize that they did not let their faith distort their science, although in the case of Newton he did show why a design inference based on ignorance is unreliable.
We can only thank Newton for his contributions to science while also showing us why ID is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous.
- PvM September 10, 2008 10:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Months later and I think we can agree Pandas did not advocate religion.
"And yet ID also claims that historical sciences deal succesfully in detecting design, so in fact purpose or design can, as ID argues, be established using methodological naturalism."
Pretty sure naturalism refers to the whole matter and energy/chance and necessity way of explaining everything. And yes, I agree that design has been successful in the historical sciences. ;)
"So why is ID different?"
It's not, at least WE AS ID'ERS don't think so. Do you beg to differ though?
"Because they want to replace or extend MN by something 'supernatural', however since the supernatural lacks as an explanation, they have to confuse the issue by making flawed claims about science rejecting design and purpose at all cost."
How is this the case? Didn't seem like they were trying to extrapolate the supernatural in those early drafts you people keep complaining about.
"And yet, these people were following methodological naturalism,"
PvM, if you want to spam several hundred comments onto this discussion then at least take the time to know what you're talking about. Richards was referring to Newton's view that if fine tuning exists, there's probably a fine-tuner.
"It took half a decade or so for LaPlace to correct this flawed 'design inference'."
I've studied the design inference for almost a year now whether through Dembski's works or other ID paraphernalia. How was Newton's flawed view a design inference?
"Openmindedness does not mean that one should accept any argument that's more closer to a concept better know as gullibility."
Breathe easy PvM, no one is advocating holocaust denial here. (just make sure Eugenie Scott is aware...)
"Is there evidence for ID in nature."
May I suggest you ask that question on an article that actually deals with nature and not the whole issue of whether or not it qualifies as science?
"Surely ID does not really tell, all they do is call our ignorance 'design' and then conflate the terminology with how people more commonly interpret this terminology."
Suggesting that design and information does not originate via blind, purposeless material processes sounds less like an argument from ignorance and more like an argument from experience to me. :/
"Bait and switch."
What's ID's bait and what does it switch to?
"Lacking any foundation that constrains their hypothesis, ID is doomed to scientific irrelevance, and anyone openminded would have to admit this."
Surely any open-minded individual would agree that ID has more then enough hypothetical constraints, otherwise you wouldn't be able to argue the evidence for it was wrong in the first place.
"In fact, several ID proponents have admitted to the lack of a foundation for ID."
Gonna quote-mine Paul Nelson on this one? I'm sure Barbara Forrest will sleep easy at night with that one.
"So it is clear that Jay is wrong to argue that science rejects design a-priori, After all, the Discovery Institute argues that ID must be science because other sciences also infer design."
You're joking, do you want me to find you ID critics who say design is not a part of science (or more specifically biology, physics, etc)?
"So, for science to reject ID, it must be because it fails to contribute."
What do you define as contributing?
"Not because it is wrong, it is not even that, it's just vacuous."
Should we move beyond the rhetorical sand in the face arguments of "It's not science, it's religious" and onto the actual evidence that has been presented in it's favor?
"Is intelligent design science?"
Most definitely yes, otherwise no one could argue it was wrong in the first place.
"Does it matter?"
If it didn't then you wouldn't be wasting your time injecting as much commentary on the topic as you already have.
"ID lacks any non trivial scientific contribution,"
Even the prediction that a function would exist for a pseudo gene? Any comment on the stuff on Research ID?
http://www.researchid.org/wiki/Main_Page
"...other than perhaps making the flawed claim that science and methodological naturalism somehow deny purpose and design or that MN would reject Newton and Keppler."
See the previous points.
"Anyone familiar with these people would realize that they did not let their faith distort their science,"
Agreed, instead they used it as their motivation.
"although in the case of Newton he did show why a design inference based on ignorance is unreliable."
How what you described of him would even be considered a design inference is beyond me, but I agree that such inferences cannot be formed on the basis of what we don't know.
"We can only thank Newton for his contributions to science while also showing us why ID is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous."
Never mind, I'll just let the explicit irony of that statement speak for itself.
- F2XL February 11, 2009 9:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
["Is intelligent design science?"]
"Most definitely yes, otherwise no one could argue it was wrong in the first place."
But we are not arguing that it is wrong.
We are arguing that it is not right or wrong, it's "not even wrong".
There is no definition of "intelligent design" that would allow a scientist to determine if it's right or wrong.
There is only the "I know it when I see it" interpretation of the "evidence" of the "natural world". But if "interpretations" are personal and cannot be agreed upon, then it's not science.
"If it didn't [matter] then you wouldn't be wasting your time injecting as much commentary on the topic as you already have."
Non sequitur. The creationists of the Texas State Board of Education wish to claim that there are "weaknesses" in evolution. "Intelligent design" attempts to provide support for such opinions. Therefore "intelligent design" should be properly smacked down as non-science nonsense. That's why it "matters".
- onein6billion March 11, 2009 8:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"But we are not arguing that it is wrong."
Okay then, so what the heck was PvM talking about his entire visit on here anyways?
"We are arguing that it is not right or wrong, it's "not even wrong"."
How exactly is that possible? Oh, are you beating that non-existant horse of "It's not science" again?
"There is no definition of " intelligent design " that would allow a scientist to determine if it's right or wrong."
So what's wrong with this one:
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Sounds clear enough to me.
"There is only the "I know it when I see it" interpretation of the "evidence" of the "natural world". But if "interpretations" are personal and cannot be agreed upon, then it's not science."
Hey onein6billion, William Paley is dead. Try the modern theory of ID. ;)
brb my good man.
- F2XL March 11, 2009 11:27AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause"
Fine. And that's why this "theory" is not science. Your "intelligent cause" is completely undefined. Its powers, limitations, method, time frame, etc. are completely undefined. Are you going to make "predictions" (as to where Tiktaalik will be found)? And, of course, the "features" you claim you are trying to explain can be easily explained by completely natural causes. You are trying to prove a negative. You wish to prove that evolution cannot explain this. Fail.
So, who is going to decide on the "best explanation"? A scientist? Or a theologian? What criteria will be used? I know it when I see it? Some nonsense about "irreducible complexity" or "specified information"? LOL.
- onein6billion April 9, 2009 8:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Fine. And that's why this "theory" is not science . Your "intelligent cause" is completely undefined."
Very well than. By the same logic the following theories have some explaining to do and thus are not qualified as science by your definition:
1. Theories involving dark matter/ energy (since they cannot explain what they each consist of)
2. The Big-Bang theory (since they cannot explain what caused that first bang in the first place)
3. Much of archeology (because they cannot always "define" who produced the artifact in question)
4. SETI (because according to you, we would have to "see" the aliens in question to confirm that it actually was from an intelligent source)
5. Any theory which involves explaining matter/energy interactions (since they cannot explain the very origin of that matter)
...and the list goes on.
"Its powers, limitations, method, time frame, etc. are completely undefined."
They don't need to be.
"Are you going to make "predictions" (as to where Tiktaalik will be found)?"
Perhaps, but we can most definitely predict limitations to what malaria can become resistant to and possibly wipe it out altogether by creating antibiotics which are beyond the reach of chance when it comes to mutant resistance. That by itself is a lot more benefit to medicine in a single project then what 150 years of Darwin's theory has given us.
"And, of course, the "features" you claim you are trying to explain can be easily explained by completely natural causes."
In that case I'm really interested as to how you believe abiogenesis was accomplished (without intelligent intervention).
"You are trying to prove a negative. You wish to prove that evolution cannot explain this. Fail."
Sure seems like the cell is designed to me....
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/tprojects/6850.html
"So, who is going to decide on the "best explanation"? A scientist? Or a theologian?"
Generally it will be mostly scientists with a handful of philosophers here and there (just like with any other theory).
"What criteria will be used? I know it when I see it?"
Probably this one:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1203
"Some nonsense about "irreducible complexity" or "specified information"? LOL."
Those do play a role, but it really depends on the feature in question.
- F2XL April 13, 2009 11:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Your "intelligent cause" is completely undefined."
There is a little difference between COMPLETELY undefined and those other theories you are trying to disparage.
"We detect design by looking for the tell-tale signs that an intelligent agent acted."
Hilarious nonsense. As usual - "intelligent agent" is a completely undefined term. So "tell-tale" signs means "I know it when I see it and I see it" as usual.
"Sure seems like the cell is designed to me...."
Yes. For you, "I know it when I see it" works fine because you are an idiot.
"Those do play a role"
No. Such nonsense has been refuted. Fail.
- onein6billion May 5, 2009 9:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Non sequitur. The creationists of the Texas State Board of Education wish to claim that there are "weaknesses" in evolution ."
I don't think anyone who feels limitations should be brought to light about a theory is a "creationist."
""Intelligent design" attempts to provide support for such opinions. Therefore "intelligent design" should be properly smacked down as non-science nonsense. That's why it "matters"."
Just for further clarification, your reasoning is as follows.....
"1. Texas school board consists of creationists
2. They support critical analysis of evolution
3. ID supports the second goal
4. Thus ID is not science"
...correct?
- F2XL March 11, 2009 1:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"I don't think anyone who feels limitations should be brought to light about a theory is a " creationist ."
The actual "limitations" that creationists try to "bring to light" are nonsense. So your sentence is backwards of course.
"1. Texas State Board of Education consists of creationists"
They are 7 out of 15 minority. But they trick some of the others into voting for what seems like a "reasonable compromise". But "strengths and weaknesses" was defeated by an 8 to 7 vote. Then other nonsense was introduced.
"2. They support critical analysis of evolution "
No. They support putting the phrase "strengths and weaknesses" and other weasel words into the ninth grade biology science standards. But they know that "weaknesses" is a cover for introducing ridiculous creationist claims. But fundamentally, there is no valid "critical analysis" of evolution that could possibly be understood by ninth graders.
"3. ID supports the second goal"
Irrelevant. Creationist birds of a feather. So what?
"4. Thus ID is not science"
Completely illogical of course you idiot.
- onein6billion April 9, 2009 8:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"The actual "limitations" that creationists try to "bring to light" are nonsense. So your sentence is backwards of course."
Like what?
"They are 7 out of 15 minority."
Okay, then just how would this make teach the controversy a religious idea at all?
"But they trick some of the others into voting for what seems like a "reasonable compromise". But "strengths and weaknesses" was defeated by an 8 to 7 vote. Then other nonsense was introduced.""
So what would you call a "reasonable compromise?"
"No. They support putting the phrase "strengths and weaknesses" and other weasel words into the ninth grade biology science standards."
...Which is pretty much the exact same thing as critical analysis of evolution. BFD.
"But they know that "weaknesses" is a cover for introducing ridiculous creationist claims."
Such as?
"But fundamentally, there is no valid "critical analysis" of evolution that could possibly be understood by ninth graders."
This seems like it could be....
http://www.discovery.org/a/4096
"Irrelevant. Creationist birds of a feather. So what?"
You've lost me, please rephrase.
"Completely illogical of course you idiot."
I hope you're aware, this cite does have a civility 101 set of rules, and if you plan on having the privilege of continuing this discussion then I suggest you follow them. ;D
- F2XL April 13, 2009 10:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
From a review of "Explore Evolution":
"Counterclaims follow that seek to undermine the earlier conclusions, including the circular reasoning of the molecular clock, the potential fabrications of Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," how differing family trees are created via anatomical and molecular patterns of relationships and the meaning of gaps in fossil evidence."
Hilarious nonsense from the "institute" that will never "discover" anything.
Of course this has nothing to do with " intelligent design " or " creationism " - it just a stupid attempt to try to discredit evolution.
"So what would you call a "reasonable compromise?""
There can never be a "reasonable compromise" with creationist idiots.
- onein6billion May 5, 2009 9:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
AC Grayling responds to Steve Fuller’s defence of his book Dissent over Descent. Steve Fuller was for some strange reasons, an expert witness for the defense, but most of his testimony served the plaintiffs quite well. In his response to Grayling's review of his book, Fuller, foolishly, argued that ID is an argument to the best explanation.
Grayling wastes not time putting to rest that myth. Enjoy
--.
I am, says Fuller, ignorant (sheerly so; this is the glaring deficiency in my case) of "ID's argument structure", which is - argument to the best explanation! Oh pul-eese! I ignored this bit in my review out of a kind of residual collegiality, for even among the toxicities that flow when members of the professoriate fall out, embarrassment on others" behalf is a restraint. But he asks for it. Argument to the best explanation! Look: there is a great deal we do not know about this world of ours, but what is beautiful about science is that its practitioners do not panic and say "cripes! we don't understand this, so we must grab something quick - attribute it to the intelligent designing activity of Fred (or Zeus or the Tooth Fairy or any arbitrary supernatural agency given ad hoc powers suitable to the task) because we can't at present think of a better explanation." They do not make a hasty grab for a lousy "best explanation" because they have serious thoughts about the kind of thing that can count as such. Instead of quick ad hoc fixes, they live with the open-ended nature of scientific enquiry, hypothesising and testing, trying to work things out rationally and conservatively on the basis of what is so far well-attested and secure. What looks like having a chance of being both an "explanation" and the "best" in a specific case turns on there being a well-disciplined idea of "best" for that specific case. But an hypothesis has no hope of becoming the best explanation (until a better comes along) unless it survives testing, is specific, and is consistent and conservative with respect to much else that is secure. This is a far cry from the gestural "best explanation" move that ID theorists attempt, which - and note this carefully - does not restrict itself to individual puzzles only, but applies to Life, the Universe and Everything. It has to, at risk of incoherence; and yet by doing so, it collapses into incoherence.
--
Read the rest at http://newhumanist.org.uk/1881
- PvM September 12, 2008 10:01AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I agree! One of the main purposes of science is to discover truth or should be anyway. To decide what that truth is or limit it as to what it can or cannot be before even beginning the search, defeats the purpose. That is strange. Why would anyone who is really interested in the truth want to do this? This point is as clear as day to most people and I believe this is why so many people favor open debate on the issue. Only Darwinists want to censor the debate.
If there can be evidence against design, then, certainly, like you said, there can be evidence for design.
We need to be open to follow the evidence where ever it leads and not predetermine where it can and cannot lead us. That is not true science. This kind of solid logic will resonate with a lot of people and help them see through the rhetoric of the evolutionists.
Good points!
tj
- tj10
September 12, 2008 9:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Seems to me like Dawkins and Weinberg were claiming that there is no evidence FOR design (at least according to Richards). It, therefore, seems illogical to claim that there exists evidence AGAINST it. I would be interested to know what the evidence against design could be.
- Hawks September 17, 2008 8:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Could evidence against design perhaps be evidence against the case brought in favor of it?
- F2XL February 11, 2009 9:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"the universe is under no obligation to conform to anyone’s definition of science."
Well, this forum is being conducted in English and I have a dictionary. So if you think the dictionary definition of "science" is not appropriate for this universe, I think you must be living is some other universe. Obviously supernatural miracles occur in your universe all the time and that's why you don't think "science" should be restricted to mere “methodological naturalism.” Well you just go and take your "intelligent design" and figure out the meaning and purpose behind all those miracles and come back with a good review paper next year. I'm waiting.....
"But if the universe can provide evidence against design,..."
If the designer is supernatural and science is restricted to the natural, then there could never be any scientific evidence against the supernatural designer. Therefore your premise is false. But in the absence of scientific evidence for a designer, the presumption is that no such designer is necessary.
"As long as a theory can be put in empirical harm’s way"
But for "intelligent design" "theory" (whatever that is), this premise is false. So there is no such theory.
"What if there is evidence of design"
Sorry, your personal opinion seems to be irrelevant in this discussion.
"We’re talking about the publicly available evidence of nature,"
Nope. You are talking about your opinion of what you see in nature. Same old same old, "I know design when I see it and I see design in nature." But that's just not good enough.
- onein6billion September 25, 2008 7:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Anybody that thinks there is currently a "healthy scientific debate" over "Intelligent Design" has missed the history of the last 150 years. It has been known scientifically and popularly since Charles Darwin's day that evolution truly happened, as surely as gravity.
Only the fools remain to discuss their contrived alternatives. Richards is a PhD? In what, I wonder. He would be an utter failure as a biologist.
- Ivar December 8, 2008 8:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Theology, it says in his profile.
- Matthew Ackerman December 11, 2008 6:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Theology, it says in his profile."
So ID isn't religious but Richard's degree is?
- F2XL December 11, 2008 6:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Anybody that thinks there is currently a "healthy scientific debate" over "Intelligent Design" has missed the history of the last 150 years. It has been known scientifically and popularly since Charles Darwin's day that evolution truly happened, as surely as gravity."
So why aren't physicists saying gravity is as well established as the theory of evolution?
"Only the fools remain to discuss their contrived alternatives. Richards is a PhD? In what, I wonder. He would be an utter failure as a biologist."
Judging by the article he submitted you say he would be a failure as a biologist? How so?
- F2XL December 11, 2008 6:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
F2XL wrote: "So why aren't physicists saying gravity is as well established as the theory of evolution ?"
It is obvious, isn't it? I hope not to be too snarky, but the Pope finally got around to admitting that Galileo was correct in teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun (get the gravity connection). With the Pope on board, whose going to argue against gravity now?
As simple as gravity appears, it holds deep fascination for today's scientists. Despite the accuracy with which we calculate orbits and such, systematic variations are observed that tell us that we don't know everything about it! The LIGO facility in Richland, WA is carrying out some of the most exquisite measurements ever made by man, hoping to learn more. We know not what will come out form the new data.
How would a PhD in Theology be a failure in biology? Such a silly question. Of what use is it to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or how hard it would be for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? There's not much work going on there. Better to know about proteins, enzymes, and how humans are related to bonobos (there is evolution in that).
Science is not a debate society where persuasion and apologetics matter. Truth always wins. Religion simply is not concerned with the truth of anything. "Gays should not marry because it says so in the Bible." Right. And we should have multiple wives (simultaneously, and not serially, as now practiced), and they would be men's property. That's the Bible for you, pretty messed up, don't you think?
- Ivar December 11, 2008 9:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"It is obvious, isn't it? I hope not to be too snarky, but the Pope finally got around to admitting that Galileo was correct in teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun (get the gravity connection). With the Pope on board, whose going to argue against gravity now?"
1. Can you explain what the Copernican principle (Earth around sun) has to do with gravity?
2. You haven't answered my question, if Evolution (as Darwin and today's proponents describe it) is as solid a theory as gravity then why don't people who believe in gravity (that should be every sane individual) say that gravitational theory is as established as today's Neo-Darwinian synthesis?
3. If you admit that consensus has been wrong in the past are you open to the possibility that such a scenario may be possible today?
"As simple as gravity appears, it holds deep fascination for today's scientists."
Regarding this sentence and the paragraph that followed, let me say that I agree it's still a source of research, investigation, and we will never know everything as is any pillar of scientific enterprise, but I'm still wondering why Neo-Darwinian theory is compared in terms of factual confirmation to gravity but not vice versa.
"How would a PhD in Theology be a failure in biology? Such a silly question. Of what use is it to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or how hard it would be for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? There's not much work going on there. Better to know about proteins, enzymes, and how humans are related to bonobos (there is evolution in that)."
Ivar, you've missed my point. Prior to the comment I'm replying to now, you said in the comment "Intelligent Design is a Fraud" the following:
"Richards is a PhD? In what, I wonder. He would be an utter failure as a biologist."
Perhaps I'm wrong, but the context I see in this line tells me you know Richards holds a doctorate degree, but you question what it may be because you insist he would be a failure in the biological sciences. My question in the comment that followed was what exactly in the following article it was that led you to conclude he would fail in the life sciences:
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/is-intelligent-design-science
Despite your insistence that he would fail as a biologist in your comment on ID being a "fraud," I see little in the article Richards submitted that precludes solely and directly to biology. Care to explain?
"Science is not a debate society where persuasion and apologetics matter. Truth always wins."
I agree with the latter of that description of the scientific process, but if you're saying that debate is excluded from it's methodology then I would have to disagree. Dissent and debate are what allow science to progress in the first place, if everyone approached a field of research with the same perspective then we wouldn't be anywhere near as far as we are today. Darwin's theory would've never even gained acceptance for all that matters; people would've used the fact that it was a "fringe" view and dismissed on those grounds alone.
"Religion simply is not concerned with the truth of anything."
What does religion have to do with this discussion? Or to the points I originally brought up here:
http://www.opposingviews.com/comments/that-comment-was-a-fraud
For most part, I'm not sure what to say about religion or your description of it's reasoning, but if religion is to be defined solely as anything that goes against the truth, then could one argue that views in science that are later falsified (but still held by many) are essentially religion by definition?
"Gays should not marry because it says so in the Bible."
I'm still not sure what relevance this has to discussion over ID, but now that you brought it up I would like to say that I don't agree with such a conclusion no matter how many fundamentalists hold it to be truth.
"Right. And we should have multiple wives (simultaneously, and not serially, as now practiced), and they would be men's property. That's the Bible for you, pretty messed up, don't you think?"
Still don't see the relevance, but I'm assuming you're referring to a recent Newsweek article in which someone insisted the Bible holds nothing against gay marriage? I was led to my (political) views as a consequentialist, but today I have nothing against gay marriage for both utilitarian and natural rights reasons. Despite my agreement with the Newsweek article's premise, I did not agree with the reasoning behind it. I'm not sure what to say about the historical accuracy of the Bible, and I'm even less certain as to whether or not it is genuinely the word of any all-knowing supernatural being, but it definitely does not condone polygamy in any form I'm aware of:
http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR324.htm
- F2XL December 12, 2008 7:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger argue that the existence of a creative super-intelligence or God are scientific questions.
"the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." - The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, p. 58-59.
"The process I will follow is the scientific method of hypothesis testing. The existence of God will be taken as a scientific hypothesis and the consequences of that hypothesis searched for in objective observations of the world around us. Various models will be assumed in which God has specific attributes that can be tested empirically. That is, if a God with such attributes exists, certain phenomena should be observable." - God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger, p. 17-18.
Do these scientists not understand the difference between science and non-science?
- ufcarazy February 12, 2009 3:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The first point stressed in my college biology class was in fact that we as scientists cannot ascribe purpose to chemical and biological functions. One can only observe and describe the complex functions that occur in biology.
I have heard theologists describe the human as a perfect being that could only be the result of an intelligent designer. The human body is far from perfect especially with regard to his physiology. The human lung is relatively inefficient and the lungs of birds are far superior in associating Oxygen with blood cells.
When ID attempts to account for observable biological complexity it falls back on a designer, but if beings are the result of intelligent design what created the designer? Evolution attempts to explain the origin of life and the process through which current species came to manifest themselves. ID excludes the designer from the explanation for life on earth. This implies that the designer be other worldly or supernatural/martian. ID doesn't offer new evidence it merely relies on the gaps in current evolutionary knowledge. Even worse is the fact that ID and so called "Creation Science" have their roots in the idiotic notion that evolution contradicts the second law of Thermodynamics.
- bschild February 26, 2009 3:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Jay Richards says "There’s especially intriguing evidence of design in cosmology, physics, and astronomy."
This is the twentieth-century version of geocentrism. It is no different than the medieval priest telling his credulous flock that God had blessed their fair city by putting the river and the harbor and the seaport right next to it.
Intelligent design creationists are unable to fairly contemplate the reality of evolution, the adaptation of life forms to the natural environment, with the laws of physics and chemistry selecting successful traits. The traits of the organisms did not - could not - select the laws of chemistry and physics - or astrophysics or cosmology.
It is sheerest hubris to assert that galaxies billions of light years away were formed by forces that were “fine-tuned for life...if the gravitational force had even a slightly different value, life would not have been possible." Gravity and other universal cosmological constants were not intelligently designed for the convenience of life on earth. Get over it.
Intelligent design creationists have even proposed that life is on earth because earth is not too hot or too cold, but, like Goldilocks' porridge, just right. Riiight...
- Paul Burnett September 13, 2008 8:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
The Goldilocks Enigma is a falsifiable observation that makes testable predictions:
http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2007/02/goldilocks-enigma-again.html
The Anthropic Principle was an ideological statement about unscientifically predisposed scientists:
http://knol.google.com/k/richard-ryals/the-anthropic-principle/1cb34nnchgkl5/2 #
The WMAP anamoly indicates that we are at the center of the universe:
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29210
- island September 19, 2008 12:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
--Island
The WMAP anamoly indicates that we are at the center of the universe:
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29210
---
Where in the article is this argument proposed?
From the conclusions
--
Therefore, there is strong evidence either of some systematic error in the WMAP pipeline (although in a preliminary analysis, the team is now discovering similar features in COBE maps), or that the largest scales of the microwave sky are dominated by a local foreground.
This finding has vast implications. It casts doubts on the cosmological interpretation of the lowest-1 multipoles from the temperature-temperature correlation and from the temperature-polarization correlation, and in turn on the claim that the first stars formed very early in the history of the universe.
--
I can see how Island may have jumped to the conclusion here
From Wikipedia
--
Lawrence Krauss is quoted as follows in the referenced Edge.org article:[8]
But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.
It would be somewhat surprising if the WMAP alignments were a complete coincidence, but the anti-Copernican implications suggested by Krauss would be far more surprising, if true. Other possibilities are (i) that residual instrumental errors in WMAP cause the effect (ii) that unexpected microwave emission from within the solar system is contaminating the maps.[9]
--
- PvM September 19, 2008 8:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Island referenced a 2004 article, however science does proceed and indeed
--
Abstract: We apply the recently defined multipole vector framework to the frequency-specific first-year WMAP sky maps, estimating the low-l multipole coefficients from the high-latitude sky by means of a power equalization filter. While most previous analyses of this type have considered only heavily processed (and foreground-contaminated) full-sky maps, the present approach allows for greater control of residual foregrounds, and therefore potentially also for cosmologically important conclusions. The low-l spherical harmonics coefficients and corresponding multipole vectors are tabulated for easy reference.
Using this formalism, we re-assess a set of earlier claims of both cosmological and non-cosmological low-l correlations based on multipole vectors. First, we show that the apparent l=3 and 8 correlation claimed by Copi et al. (2004) is present only in the heavily processed map produced by Tegmark et al. (2003), and must therefore be considered an artifact of that map. Second, the well-known quadrupole-octopole correlation is confirmed at the 99% significance level, and shown to be robust with respect to frequency and sky cut. Previous claims are thus supported by our analysis. Finally, the low-l alignment with respect to the ecliptic claimed by Schwarz et al. (2004) is nominally confirmed in this analysis, but also shown to be very dependent on severe a-posteriori choices. Indeed, we show that given the peculiar quadrupole-octopole arrangement, finding such a strong alignment with the ecliptic is not unusual.
--
Authors: P. Bielewicz, H. K. Eriksen, A. J. Banday, K. M. Gorski, P. B. Lilje
Title: Multipole vector anomalies in the first-year WMAP data: a cut-sky analysis
Astrophys.J. 635 (2005) 750-760
Conclusions:
--
In this paper, we have revisited a set of claims found in the literature regarding the low-ℓ CMB pattern and multipole vectors. We have remedied the most serious outstanding problem connected to these analyses, in that we have used only partial sky data to estimate the multipole vectors. This allowed us to study the frequency-specific WMAP sky maps individually, while imposing different
sky cuts to study regional dependence. Using these methods, the multipole vector approach may finally be used for cosmological analysis.
Three claims were studied in depth. First, Copi et al. (2004) found a set of strong correlations among the ℓ = 2, . . . , 8 multipoles using the multipole vector formalism. Unfortunately, they only had access to two full-sky maps (the WILC and TOH sky maps), which are known to be contaminated by galactic foregrounds.
While we reproduced their results for these two maps, we also found that the anomaly is not present in the best available frequency-specific CMB maps. Therefore, as far as the low-ℓ correlations are statistically significant, they must be considered an artifact of the TOH and WILC
sky maps, and not of the WMAP data as a whole.
Second, we revisited the much more established anomaly first reported by de Oliveira-Costa et al. (2004); the strong alignment between the quadrupole and octopole moments. Our results confirm previous conclusions: The effect is significant at the 98-99% confidence level, and independent of frequency and sky cut. It appears to be quite robust.
Finally, we also considered the claims made by Schwarz et al. (2004), that the low-ℓ CMB field could be of solar system origin. This claim was based on the observation that the ℓ = 2 and 3 multipole cross-product vectors align with the ecliptic north-south axis, and, indeed, that they point towards the vernal equinox. While the nominal significance of these results are confirmed in this paper, we also found that it is not at all unusual to observe such a strong alignment with one of the three major axes (ecliptic, galactic or super-galactic), given the peculiar internal arrangements of the quadrupole and octopole. Thus, it is not the ecliptic correlation per se that is anomalous, but rather the quadrupole-octopole alignment. Whether this latter feature is caused by cosmological or non-cosmological physics is not yet clear, but solar-system physics does not appear to provide the most plausible explanation.
---
Cheers
- PvM September 19, 2008 9:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai :arXiv.org:astro-ph/0507186
Which link to such papers as the following which show that the mystery has not been resolved yet.
--
To explore the origin of these features, including possible foreground effects, we repeated many calculations using sky-masked data sets. The data shows evidence for systematic differences between the Northern and Southern regions of the sky. Masking out the galactic plane does not eliminate signals of anisotropy seen in the full sky studies. As consistency checks, the anisotropies of CMB plus simulated synchrotron emission contamination from the plane of the galaxy are detected by our methods in just the spatial regions where they are simulated. The observed anisotropies cannot readily be explained away by appealing to galactic foreground contamination.
--
Testing Isotropy of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
Authors: Samal, Pramoda Kumar; Saha, Rajib; Jain, Pankaj; Ralston, John P.
MNRAS, 385, 1718-1728 (2008)
and
--
Recent analyses of the WMAP data seem to indicate the possible presence of large-angle anisotropy in the Universe. If confirmed, these can have important consequences for our understanding of the Universe. A number of attempts have recently been made to establish the reality and nature of such anisotropies in the CMB data. Among these is a directional indicator recently proposed by the authors. A distinctive feature of this indicator is that it can be used to generate a sky map of the large-scale anisotropies of the CMB maps. Applying this indicator to full-sky temperature maps we found a statistically significant preferred direction. The full-sky maps used in these analyses are known to have residual foreground contamination as well as complicated noise properties. Thus, here we performed the same analysis for a map where regions with high foreground contamination were removed. We find that the main feature of the full-sky analysis, namely the presence of a significant axis of asymmetry, is robust with respect to this masking procedure. Other subtler anomalies of the full-sky are on the other hand no longer present.
--
So far I have seen few data that suggests that the data show that the earth is at the 'center' of the universe.
A note on the large-angle anisotropies in the WMAP cut-sky maps
Authors: Bernui, A.; Mota, B.; Reboucas, M. J.; Tavakol, R.
Int.. J. Mod. Phys. D16 (2007) 411-420
- PvM September 19, 2008 9:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID misleading
The pro-IDers claim that "ID Uses Scientific Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive PredictionsDiscovery Institute on ID Uses Scien. Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive Predictions"
However this is false and misleading. First of all it is important to point out that by design, ID means the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance". Now what does this mean? This means that when science fails to have found an explanation for any particular system, ID argues that the default should not be "we don't know" but rather "design".
In other words, design is a place holder for our ignorance. Now ask yourself, does ID provide any positive explanations? Of course it does not. How otherwise does ID explain the bacterial flagellum? It provides no testable hypotheses beyond the negative claim that "science cannot explain it".
Notice that ID remains scientifically vacuous, that is without merit, because it is unable to constrain its designer(s) which means that as an explanation it cannot even compete with the "we don't know" category.
In other words, ID uses misleading terminology as well as bait and switch to make its claims. Ask yourself for instance: how does ID define 'information' and how to does it actually use this terminology?
Information is the negative base two logarithm of the probability that a particular system can be explained by science. In other words, complexity or information, two terms which are used interchangeably by ID disappears when one can explain the system. But that also means that no complexity remains if ID were to be able to explain the system.
Realize that ID has failed to be scientifically relevant in any non trivial manner and you will come to realize why it has remained and is in fact doomed to remain, scientifically vacuous.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 8:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (7)
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.
You are not looking at it scientifically
PvM said:
quote
"The pro-IDers claim that "ID Uses Scientific Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive PredictionsDiscovery Institute on ID Uses Scien. Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive Predictions"
However this is false and misleading. First of all it is important to point out that by design, ID means the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance". Now what does this mean? This means that when science fails to have found an explanation for any particular system, ID argues that the default should not be "we don't know" but rather "design"."
/quote
I personally wouldn't attribute this kind of stuff to ID without more direct evidence than an "appearance" but a scientist wouldn't call this an explanation, (like you seem to think that IDists would), rather, (s)he would say that the so called, "appearance of design" that is often a common feature to these arguments, warrants further scientific investigation.
It is unfair for you to say that IDists will claim that this is the answer, end of story, when in fact, the science that is being begged by the "appearance" is only for further investigation into the "apparent plausibility" that there is some kind of strong anthropic constraint at work here that is a part of some good physical reason why we might be entirely necessary to the energy economy of the ecosystem to which we belong*.
You pretend like the "appearance" doesn't beg a real scientific question, because you are over-reacting to your perceived motivation of IDists, but not because you are thinking like an honest scientist would.
-A REAL country heard from
- island September 10, 2008 3:32AM
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.
Hit a nerve?
--Island states--
You pretend like the "appearance" doesn't beg a real scientific question, because you are over-reacting to your perceived motivation of IDists, but not because you are thinking like an honest scientist would.
--
I am not sure what your argument is but given the ad hominem, I doubt that it is very relevant. Appearance of design does beg a real scientific question, however science has so far shown how honest scientists resolve this issue. After all, we know that us humans are very easily deceived in seeing design where there is none. This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation.
As to ID, what do they do to resolve the issue of appearance of design? Nothing really because they refuse to go beyond the design inference approach. Ask yourself, what have ID proponents done in this area?
Pray tell.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 8:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
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.
Apparently I did hit a nerve, yes...
... because I simply stated a common fact, and there was no "ad hominem" involved, but, as you stated, you "did not get the point", so you see it as an insult.
PvM says:
"Appearance of design does beg a real scientific question"
and
"This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation."
But is the adaptation guided by some higher agency to a specific end?... which is the question that the "appearance" calls for that is willfully ignored by scientists. Science doesn't give equal time to the guy that's standing over the body holding the smoking gun, (the most apparent implication of the evidence), because reactionary scientists think that it looks too much like god, so the single investigated possibility is strictly limited to... "This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation"... no matter how long it takes to prove it.
And they don't ever see this as the violation of the scientific method that it really is because they wrongly believe that "agency" necessarily equates to an intelligent agent...
Which makes the debate political, rather than scientific, much to the highly vocal chagrin of theoretically righteous scientists...
... which makes ID... a necessary evil to counterbalance the historically recorded fact that scientists are stereotypically anti-centric in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.
It is begrudgingly known to scientists as "Copernicanism".
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/06/23 /
http://knol.google.com/k/richard-ryals/the-anthropic-principle/1cb34nnchgkl5/2
http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2007/02/goldilocks-enigma-again.html
http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/very-strong-anthropic-principle.html
- island September 10, 2008 10:07AM
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.
Honest scientist
You are missing the point, the ad hominem is not that I did not understand your argument, I can see why, given your limited exposure to ID, you may have come to that conclusion. Rather, I was referring to your statement "honest scientist".
--Island--
But is the adaptation guided by some higher agency to a specific end?...
---
A good philosophical question and I think you and I would agree that this adaptation could have been guided by some higher agency, of course, by using a fully natural mechanism, such questions remain scientifically vacuous.
--Island--
Which makes the debate political, rather than scientific, much to the highly vocal chagrin of theoretically righteous scientists...
---
I think you are a bit to rough on your fellow ID proponents.
--Island--
Science doesn't give equal time to the guy that's standing over the body holding the smoking gun, (the most apparent implication of the evidence), because reactionary scientists think that it looks too much like god, so the single investigated possibility is strictly limited to... "This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation"... no matter how long it takes to prove it.
--
Where did we see God standing over the victim? The reason science does not give equal time to ID is because it presents nothing scientifically relevant, it's really that simple. Call it 'reactionary' or 'old fashioned' that scientists insists on something scientifically relevant.
Remember, design always remains a possibility, even when science manages to explain the supposedly 'designed' features, such is the nature of theology versus science. However, agency is never truly of the table, scientifically speaking, as ID very well realizes when it comes to historical sciences. So how come that, unlike these historical sciences, ID has failed to contribute in any meaningful manner?
- PvM
September 10, 2008 10:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
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.
Nope
PvM stated:
"A good philosophical question and I think you and I would agree that this adaptation could have been guided by some higher agency, of course, by using a fully natural mechanism, such questions remain scientifically vacuous."
No, that's false, and this empirically evidenced plausibility doesn't even have to be right for your convenient ignorance of the plausibilty to have proven my point:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990
- island September 10, 2008 10:49AM
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.
Design is always a theoretical possibility
--I wrote: --
"A good philosophical question and I think you and I would agree that this adaptation could have been guided by some higher agency, of course, by using a fully natural mechanism, such questions remain scientifically vacuous."
--
--Island--
No, that's false, and this empirically evidenced plausibility doesn't even have to be right for your convenient ignorance of the plausibilty to have proven my point:
--
I am not ignoring the plausibility, I told you as much when I stated that design always remains a possibility. What I am arguing is that a plausibility is not sufficient for it to be scientifically with merit. In fact, ID has shown nothing to go beyond its eliminative and thus highly unreliable approach to detect rarefied design.
Perhaps you can show us how ID has contributed in this area to make the question a scientifically tractable one?
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
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.
Copernicanism isn't honest science...
PvM said:
Rather, I was referring to your statement "honest scientist".
So was I, and had you clicked on the very first link or even read the rest of the post, then you'd know why.
Pvm:
"I can see why, given your limited exposure to ID..."
LOL!
- island September 10, 2008 10:53AM
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 truth comes out...
PvM exposed his motives:
"I think you are a bit to rough on your fellow ID proponents."
I'm an atheist, a materialist, and a Darwinist, but you willingness to find god where no reason was given, proves just about everything that was said about how reactionary antifanatics hurt science just as much as any fanatical cretionist ever does.
So take your politics and vote.
- island September 10, 2008 11:03AM
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.
So take your politics and vote.
I surely intend to do so, but these issues go beyond questions of policy. I am not sure about reactionary antifanatics and how you believe it applies to me, but I can reassure you that rather than being fanatic, I am well informed and committed to my faith and good science. If that means I am guilty of some 'crime' in your eyes, then I plead willingly and proudly guilty as I stand for accuracy in science, freedom of religion and more.
I have many reasons to find 'god' and I am sure that I do not confuse my theology with my scientific endeavours, since both would suffer.
I am still somewhat lost as to the nature of your argument but at least I can attempt to address your confusions.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:34AM
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.
"ID has failed to contribute in any meaningful manner?"
You said "ID has failed to contribute in any meaningful manner?"
Wrong! Newton, Pascal, Einstein, and many others put stock in the ID theory. This is why they figured out what they did. With the assumption of ID you can bet that there is order to the natural world and that it its knowable. Einstein believed as much as people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and many others want to believe. After all, he was on a quest to discover the "Theory of Everything" or "to read the mind of GOD". When asked what was his objection to Quantum Mechanics he was quoted as saying, "I refuse to believe GOD would play chance with the Universe"
The better question is:
"What has evolutionary biology contributed in a meaningful matter?"
I'll help you out. Mr. Richard Dawkins said that using a computer program to map out piping to containers that over generations the program had calculated the perfect plumbing for this system. Then, proceeded to say that we see the same type of ducting system in canine livers.
Ha!
That simply means that (1)there was an intelligence behind both, and (2) your program sucked because it took more than one try.
If the bank took more than one try to deposit your check, you'd be pretty steamed. You be mad to continue banking with them.
So why then, do you trust a theory in which death & time are the heroes and is obviously lacking the same credentials that you claim apply to ID.
"Pull the beam out of your eye before trying to pull the splinter out of mine!"
Jesus of Nazareth
"Asking an atheist why he can't find GOD is like asking a thief why he can't find a police officer."
Kent Hovind
- archfilejockey
September 11, 2008 1:57PM
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.
Let's not add to the confusion.
I understand why ID proponents would like to embrace Newton and others as relevant to ID. And when pressed for details, the best they can come up with is that their faith guided them in developing scientific theories, theories which had no relevance to ID since it was based on methodological naturalism.
It's this regrettable confusion which may give ID more relevance in people's minds than it really deserves. Wanting to 'read the mind of God' can be a useful metaphor to spur scientific research to the same extent as 'wanting to discover a theory of everything' to better understand nature. One should not confuse this with ID having a meaningfull manner to science.
In fact, with Newton, one of the few ID explanations he provided, was shown to be quite wrong and it took until Laplace figured it out, to correct Newton's 'foolish' suggestion that since he could not understand how orbits of planets would remain stable, it would require God to actively correct these orbits.
The concept of God is one of faith alone, once you have accepted the existence, it is hard to imagine a world without, but similarly, to those who have not found the need or for those who were not grown up in a religious environment, the need for a God or gods seems rather foolish. And neither side really has compelling scientific arguments as to why one position should be better than others.
So let's not confuse these issues. ID is already confusing enough.
PS: Since you used double quotes to describe Einstein's response, it would be helpful to correctly quote him. It was not "I refuse to believe GOD would play chance with the Universe" but rather
"I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice." (Einstein in a 1929 letter to Max Born).
However, Einstein was hardly appealing to a God as guiding his quest for science.
--
Einstein clarified his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
---
Source: Wikipedia "Einstein"
- PvM
September 11, 2008 2:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
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.
Quoting Kent Hovind In An Intelligent Design Discussion Is A Mistake
"Archfilejockey" quoted Kent Hovind as saying: "Asking an atheist why he can't find GOD is like asking a thief why he can't find a police officer."
Unfortunately for Kent Hovind, he has no problem finding police officers and prison guards in his current residence - he's serving time in federal prison for tax-related crimes. Hovind is a Young Earth Creationist and has the dubious distinction of having other Young Earth Creationist individuals and organizations such as Answers in Genesis criticize his excessive zeal.
Quoting such ardent defenders of Young Earth Creationism as Kent Hovind in defense of intelligent design creationism is anathema to the Discovery Institute, as they continue to try desperately to convince the world that intelligent design creationism has scientific merit rather than religious merit.
- Paul Burnett
September 13, 2008 4:12PM
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.
conflating evolution with the creation of the universe
Einstein's quotes are not supportive of ID, he was talking about the fabric of the universe, not the means by which species evolve. This is a common shell game played by ID proponents. They setup some premise based on the creation of the universe then draw a conclusion about evolution and hope that no one notices. Evolution and the creation of the universe (or the fabric of the universe) are not the same issue.
- reckoner
October 16, 2008 10:51AM
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.
Looking at things scientifically?
Science is ultimately based on the scientific method, which is used to support and confirm physical and chemical laws. It is the application of those laws to the past that makes natural history possible and the application of those same laws to the future that makes it possible to make predictions.
The question is, what physical and chemical laws are in play in Intelligent Design? We know evolution is scientific because it does not contradict any scientific laws, we can make predictions based on evolutionary theory, and we can falsify it by finding a possible mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating beyond a certain limit, making evolution beyond the limits of a "created kind" impossible. But we have found no such thing, ever.
You cannot test to see if something in biology is "intelligently designed" by reference to scientific laws. Instead, you would ASSUME something is designed just because it looks complex and specific, but such complexity is indeed possible via natural selection, because complex organisms may have survival value over less complex organisms. DNA, RNA, and proteins are polymers, molecules that are made of repeating parts, and they can actually be of unlimited length, so their complexity is also unlimited.
In short, there is NO evidence for Intelligent Design. None. It is theology, nothing more.
- Dale Husband
September 11, 2008 11:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (8)
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.
AC Grayling v Fuller
Grayling explains, in his review of Fuller's latest book, quite well how ID is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous
--
Fuller has written about Popper; he seems to forget Popper’s killer point, namely, a theory that explains everything explains nothing. ID is such a theory; everything is consistent with it, nothing disproves it. The idea that there is such a thing as a deity behaves logically as a contradiction does (unsurprisingly, because the idea is indeed contradictory): anything whatever follows from it. (But presumably this is okay for Fuller because he was educated by Jesuits.)
--
AC Grayling, Origin of the specious, New, Humanist, Volume 123 Issue 5 September/October 2008
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1856
In his response, Fuller shows that he has fallen victim to the bait and switch of ID
--Fuller
But on to Grayling’s most glaring deficiency vis-à-vis the topic of Dissent over Descent: his sheer ignorance of ID’s argument structure, which is not that of a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) who looks for whatever evidence supports his pet theory. Generally speaking, ID is defended on the basis of what philosophers of science call “inference to the best explanation” for the plausibility of design over chance in nature
--
But ID is NOT about an inference to the best explanation, something trivially shown by asking any ID proponent how ID explains the bacterial flagella, which due to lack of sufficient scientific understanding was claimed to have been 'designed'
Of course, this somewhat foolish argument sets up Fuller for a scathing response
--Grayling:
I am, says Fuller, ignorant (sheerly so; this is the glaring deficiency in my case) of "ID's argument structure", which is - argument to the best explanation! Oh pul-eese! I ignored this bit in my review out of a kind of residual collegiality, for even among the toxicities that flow when members of the professoriate fall out, embarrassment on others" behalf is a restraint. But he asks for it. Argument to the best explanation! Look: there is a great deal we do not know about this world of ours, but what is beautiful about science is that its practitioners do not panic and say "cripes! we don't understand this, so we must grab something quick - attribute it to the intelligent designing activity of Fred (or Zeus or the Tooth Fairy or any arbitrary supernatural agency given ad hoc powers suitable to the task) because we can't at present think of a better explanation." They do not make a hasty grab for a lousy "best explanation" because they have serious thoughts about the kind of thing that can count as such. Instead of quick ad hoc fixes, they live with the open-ended nature of scientific enquiry, hypothesising and testing, trying to work things out rationally and conservatively on the basis of what is so far well-attested and secure. What looks like having a chance of being both an "explanation" and the "best" in a specific case turns on there being a well-disciplined idea of "best" for that specific case. But an hypothesis has no hope of becoming the best explanation (until a better comes along) unless it survives testing, is specific, and is consistent and conservative with respect to much else that is secure. This is a far cry from the gestural "best explanation" move that ID theorists attempt, which - and note this carefully - does not restrict itself to individual puzzles only, but applies to Life, the Universe and Everything. It has to, at risk of incoherence; and yet by doing so, it collapses into incoherence.
--
Well said. Seems that many people have fallen victim of the erroneous claim that ID is an inference to the best explanation. After all he should have consulted Dembski who is on the records as
--Dembski
As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: ”Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.
--
Are there still any ID proponents out there willing to defend the position?
- PvM
September 13, 2008 9:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
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.
PvM misleading
PvM wrote:
However this is false and misleading. First of all it is important to point out that by design, ID means the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance". Now what does this mean? This means that when science fails to have found an explanation for any particular system, ID argues that the default should not be "we don't know" but rather "design".
This is false and misleading. ID does not attempt to fill gaps in science, it looks at the same evidence produced by science (eg, the mechanics of molecular biology) and draws an inference different from folks like PvM. ID sees a complex system which contains inter-dependent parts, assembled in a highly specific way, does the math on probability this arrangement could arise by chance and concludes the system is designed. Period. No god, no gap filling.
I invite PvM to cite any leading ID theorist filling gaps in scientific knowledge with ID, as claimed above. Just one.
- Highlander
September 10, 2008 8:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
Glad you asked
--Hghlander--
This is false and misleading. ID does not attempt to fill gaps in science, it looks at the same evidence produced by science (eg, the mechanics of molecular biology) and draws an inference different from folks like PvM.
---
While many unfamiliar with ID may believe this to be the case, and indeed, the Discovery Institute has done a good job confusing its followers, it is important to realize that this is exactly how ID works.
I am sure that Highlander is familiar with the foundational works of Behe and Dembski, both rely on the absence of science being able to explain a particular feature to infer 'design'.
--Highlander--
ID sees a complex system which contains inter-dependent parts, assembled in a highly
specific way, does the math on probability this arrangement could arise by chance and concludes the system is designed. Period. No god, no gap filling.
---
That is incorrect as well, in fact in ID speak, complex means 'lacking scientific explanations', nothing more, nothing less. From this, ID conflates the meaning of complexity with what one has come to understand as complexity in science, which is not the same as how ID 'defines' it.
Sneaky eh..
But I can understand the levels of confusion. For instance, Highlander asserts that ID calculates the probability that something was designed by chance and then concludes 'design'. While this description only superficially matches the design inference, it shows the gap filling of "not chance thus design", nothing more, nothing less. Of course, ID has not done any non trivial calculations of probabilities and worse, it does not have to reject chance alone, which is often the simplest and still intractable calculation, but it also has to exclude regularity pathways. And yet, ask yourself, what calculations exist for the bacterial flagellum or any non trivial biological system?
None I tell you. Surprised? I bet. This is but one reason ID has remained scientifically without content.
--Highlander--
I invite PvM to cite any leading ID theorist filling gaps in scientific knowledge with ID, as claimed above. Just one.
---
Dembski, Behe come to mind.
Glad you asked. Many ID proponents are only vaguely familiar with ID.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 9:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
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.
In depth exploration
---
Okay, let’s start with how ID tries to infer design, namely by using the Design Inference. In order for something to be designed, it needs to be ‘specified’ and sufficiently ‘complex’. So what is really meant by these terms? Specification basically means that there exists an independent description of the event or system, and as Dembski points out in biology ‘specification’ is trivially met by function. So what about ‘complexity’? Unlike the more common meaning of the term, complexity in ID speak refers to something which cannot (yet) be explained by regularity and/or chance. When these requirements are met, a design inference is triggered. In other words, a design inference bascially states that something functional whose origin we do not (yet) understand and is thus specified and complex, is also ‘designed’. Or to use Del Ratzsch’s description: Design is the “set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance. “. This clearly qualifiies as an argument from ignorance, also known as a ‘gap argument’.
So far so good, Intelligent Design is inferred based on our ignorance not because of what we know. So how do ID activists make the claim that ID is based on ‘positive evidence’? After all, it seems self evident that ID cannot make any predictions or that it is based on ‘positive evidence’. After all, without knowing the intentions or capabilities of the Designer, how can one make any predictions? Anything goes…
---
As to the scientific vacuity, Ryan Nichols states it best
--Ryan Nichols--
In my argument against Intelligent Design Theory I will not contend that it is not falsifiable or that it implies contradictions. I’ll argue that Intelligent Design Theory doesn’t imply anything at all, i.e. it has no content. By ‘content’ I refer to a body of determinate principles and propositions entailed by those principles. By ‘principle’ I refer to a proposition of central importance to the theory at issue. By ‘determinate principle’ I refer to a proposition of central importance to the theory at issue in which the extensions of its terms are clearly defined. I’ll evaluate the work of William Dembski because he specifies his methodology in detail, thinks Intelligent Design Theory is contentful and thinks Intelligent Design Theory (hereafter ‘IDT’) grounds an empirical research program. Later in the paper I assess a recent trend in which IDT is allegedly found a better home as a metascientific hypothesis, which serves as a paradigm that catalyzes research. I’ll conclude that, whether IDT is construed as a scientific or metascientific hypothesis, IDT lacks content.
--
Source: Ryan Nichols, "Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of intelligent design theory", The American Catholic philosophical quarterly, 2003, vol. 77, no4, pp. 591-611
From my contribution at http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/05/post_17.html
- PvM
September 10, 2008 9:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
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.
Assertions needing cites
--PvM--
| I am sure that Highlander is familiar with the
| foundational works of Behe and Dembski,
| both rely on the absence of science being
| able to explain a particular feature to infer 'design'.
Would that a citation exist to back this one up!
I am familiar with their works. Not familiar with that argument, though. I think PvM may be conflating 'science' with 'evidence supporting materialist assumptions'. The above statement is true with this substitution.
--PvM--
| That is incorrect as well, in fact in ID speak,
| complex means 'lacking scientific explanations',
| nothing more, nothing less. From this, ID conflates
| the meaning of complexity with what one has
| come to understand as complexity in science,
| which is not the same as how ID 'defines' it.
Again, a citation would be nice. I don't expect them considering PvM's continued conflation of 'science' with 'evidence supporting materialist assumptions'.
ID does say that complexity alone isn't a sign of intelligence, but irreducible complexity is. The criteria have been revised over the years to clarify, but the core idea is sound: A complex system with inter-dependent parts has a much higher probabilistic hurdle for spontaneous unguided assembly. A simple analogy is the game "Mouse Trap" - if all the parts aren't in the right place, the metal ball won't reach the trigger to drop the plastic net.
PvM is also confirming the falsifiability of ID with this statement. ID proponents do say an empirical demonstration (evidence supporting materialist assumptions) of an unguided process producing such interdependent systems, while retaining over-all reproductive ability, would falsify the design inference. Human technology, a result of intelligence, is chock full of irreducibly complex systems. It is therefore not unreasonable to infer intelligence in biological systems absent evidence supporting materialist assumptions.
--PvM--
| Highlander asserts that ID calculates the probability
| that something was designed by chance and then
| concludes 'design'. While this description only
| superficially matches the design inference, it shows
| the gap filling of "not chance thus design", nothing
| more, nothing less. Of course, ID has not done any
| non trivial calculations of probabilities and worse, it
| does not have to reject chance alone, which is often
| the simplest and still intractable calculation, but it
| also has to exclude regularity pathways. And yet,
| ask yourself, what calculations exist for the
| bacterial flagellum or any non trivial biological system?
Dembski wrote a book and has a website and several papers detailing the scope of input points and explaining how and why statistical probabilities are used and calculated. In real life they are used to distinguish/derive (designed) signals from (random) noise.
PvM seems unaware randomness and design are mutually exclusive concepts. I understand 'chance' as shorthand for that which happens as a result of unguided (random) interaction of matter according to human understanding of forces and material chemistry. 'Organized' means ordered with intent and implies intelligence Human tech. varies in level of organizational complexity, but is wholly caused by intelligent action upon matter. This organization (design) is inferred because the arrangement of such matter defies explanation appealing to chance.
The calculations on flagellum are irrelevant, but can be derived given accurate input points - how many of each different proteins are needed? Which components are required for it to function as needed - (ie, if the cell needs to move to survive, what functional parts are needed), how many nucleotides are needed to code the RNA template of each protein? And so on...
The lack of evidence supporting materialist assumptions complexity is a chance arrangement means the opposite could be true. That many of these systems look designed and that science has not (even remotely) demonstrated a chance pathway to such organization, leaves design as the logical alternative. Until proven otherwise.
- Highlander
September 10, 2008 11:34AM
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.
Chance, no chance
--Highlander--
PvM seems unaware randomness and design are mutually exclusive concepts.
---
Pray tell given that I have shown you how ID defines design to be the set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance. Or perhaps I should translate this somewhat technical phrase? Let me attempt to explain. Design is the compliment (mutually exclusive) of regularity-or-chance explanations. Of course, this is wrong in the sense that it may ignore the fact that randomness can in fact be an attribute of a designer and of course, the simplistic statement that randomness and design are mutually exclusive only captures part of the ID argument.
By focusing on pure chance, Highlander has shown that he does not understand the ID argument and has highlighted one of the major problems for ID, namely that regularity and chance can explain information and complexity quite well.
Until we clarify the terminology, highlander's arguments seem irrelevant at best as they argue a strawman version of reality.
When asked for examples, Highlander remains without any, exemplifying once again the scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design. Why, if design depends so strongly on this step, are ID proponents unable to calculate any relevant measure of probability for said supposedly 'designed' systems?
That's the $1M dollar question. I would like to buy a vowel, Alex.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
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.
Still no cites?
Naming two well known ID proponents does not a citation make to support PvM's twisted version of ID arguments. I've asked for them repeatedly and he's dodging. What PvM still fails to understand is that probability is a measure of random outcomes. It cannot 'prove' design because it isn't a measure of agency.
Probability tells us how often to expect a certain arrangement of a given number of items within the whole set of items. We expect fellow poker players to get flushes and straights and even straight flushes. We know a royal flush is possible but not very probable so we might naturally suspect a fix on the deal if several royal flushes were dealt in an evening of cards. Extend that to a running game over many days and we are less suspicious. Why? Because of all possible arrangements of hands, a royal flush is the least probable and very unlikely to be repeated in a limited number of deals. A deck of cards is cut before dealing as a check on intentional sorting.
So we could go through all the permutations of flagellar components, the number and arrangement of proteins, the nucleotides needed to code them and so on, but why? If we stumbled upon a starter motor in the middle of a remote Amazonian jungle, our experience would immediately eliminate it as a product of environmental selection. The exact same is true when modern science reveals an IC structure such as the flagellar motor & assembly. The absence of a plausible natural pathway means the design inference is valid. The appearance of such a pathway would falsify design.
I have not focused on pure chance, either. Regularity and chance can explain re-arrangement of existing systems, but I would (again) request PvM produce citations to support his central claim that specified information is an emergent property of matter.
That I do not address other aspects of the ID argument doesn't mean I've I excluded them. I'm just addressing the simple core of ID: Design eliminates chance as a cause. Initial biological systems formed by chance collision of the right stuff in the right environment at the right time, growing more and more complex either happened or did not.
If the question is whether some arrangement of matter is random or designed, then assuming chance fills the gap beforehand is classic question begging. PvM's circular proof therefore doesn't stand. His allusions to facts to which he offers no support, other than the force of his assertion 'regularity and chance can explain information and complexity quite well', stand wholly unsupported.
Okay PvM. Support that last one. Cite the literature which demonstrates how information and complexity are easily explained by regularity and chance. That would falsify a central proposition of ID. Since you said it would be easy, I eagerly await the citation.
- Highlander
September 10, 2008 1:35PM
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.
See below
Seems Highlander was somewhat quick in his 'response' as I am more than willing to support my claims.
--
Naming two well known ID proponents does not a citation make to support PvM's twisted version of ID arguments. I've asked for them repeatedly and he's dodging. What PvM still fails to understand is that probability is a measure of random outcomes. It cannot 'prove' design because it isn't a measure of agency.
--
I love the assertion that my version of ID is twisted, when it is based on the writings of ID proponents. Perhaps Highlander knows something we may not know?
Am I dodging his 'repeated requests'? Of course not.
Highlander asks for another cite
--
Okay PvM. Support that last one. Cite the literature which demonstrates how information and complexity are easily explained by regularity and chance. That would falsify a central proposition of ID. Since you said it would be easy, I eagerly await the citation.
--
As I said, this is simple and quite well known in the ID world. I guess that means that it would indeed falsify a central proposition of ID?
Nuff said
Tom Schneider, "evolution of biological information" Nucleic Acids Res", vol 28(14), 2794-2799, 2000. http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov /~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html
Kim JT, Martinetz T, Polani D, Bioinformatic principles underlying the information content of transcription factor binding sites, J. of Theor. Biology, Volume: 220 , Issue: 4 , Pages: 529-544 , Published: FEB 21 2003
Christoph Adami, Charles Ofria and Travis C. Collier, "Evolution of biological complexity", PNAS April 25, 2000 vol. 97 no. 9 4463-4468
--Abstract--
To make a case for or against a trend in the evolution of complexity in biological evolution, complexity needs to be both rigorously defined and measurable. A recent information-theoretic (but intuitively evident) definition identifies genomic complexity with the amount of information a sequence stores about its environment. We investigate the evolution of genomic complexity in populations of digital organisms and monitor in detail the evolutionary transitions that increase complexity. We show that, because natural selection forces genomes to behave as a natural “Maxwell Demon,” within a fixed environment, genomic complexity is forced to increase.
--
Christoph Adami, Sequence complexity in Darwinian evolution, Complexity, Volume 8 , Issue 2, Pages: 49 - 56 , 2002
--Abstract--
Whether or not Darwinian evolution leads to an increase in complexity depends crucially on what we mean by the term. Physical complexity is a measure based on automata theory and information theory that turns out to be a simple and intuitive measure of the amount of information that an organism stores, in its genome, about the environment in which it evolves. It can be shown that the physical complexity of the genomes of clonal organisms must increase in evolution, if they occupy a single niche and if the environment does not change. This law of increasing complexity is a consequence of natural selection only and can be violated in co-evolving systems as well as at high mutation rates, in sexual populations, and in time-dependent landscapes. Yet, co-evolution, because it can be viewed as creating an increase in physical complexity across niches, is likely the agent of a global increase in complexity.
--
Richard E. Lenski, Charles Ofria, Robert T. Pennock, Christoph Adami, ""The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features", Nature (Vol. 423, 2003, pp. 139-145)
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003 /
- PvM
September 10, 2008 1:59PM
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.
Flawed
--Highlander--
The exact same is true when modern science reveals an IC structure such as the flagellar motor & assembly. The absence of a plausible natural pathway means the design inference is valid. The appearance of such a pathway would falsify design.
--
As long as we agree that 'design' is nothing more that the claim that 'science cannot explain a particular feature or system', however then it has little relevance to intelligent design(ers). The IC claim of the flagellum is a good example of flawed reasoning. First of all, it has been shown how at least in principle IC systems can evolve, of course ID is quick to restrict IC to systems which retain their "original function" and "evolved by Darwinian processes". In other words, IC is basically the much narrower claim that certain systems could not possibly have evolved by Darwinian processes while maintaining their original function.
Of course, falsifying this would at best falsify the claim of ignorance, not really the concept of design as it is more commonly understood.
Clever trick...
- PvM
September 10, 2008 2:02PM
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.
Cites
--Highlander--
"I am sure that Highlander is familiar with the foundational works of Behe and Dembski,
both rely on the absence of science being able to explain a particular feature to infer 'design'."
Would that a citation exist to back this one up!
--
Sure, always ready to please the audience.
William Demsbki. "The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities", Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory, 1998
William Dembski, 'No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence ", Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001
Irreducible Complexity is an example of Behe's formulation of 'ignorance should be called design'. In case of Behe, his biggest mistake is that he limits himself to only Darwinian processes and the concept of original function.
So let me explain what the design inference is all about:
The Explanatory Filter
A good overview of the filter and its shortcomings can be found in Wilkins, John S, and Wesley R Elsberry. 2001. The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance. Biology and Philosophy 16 (November):711-724.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/theftovertoil/theftovertoil.html
Basically the steps involve
1. High probability then it was caused by a regularity
2. Intermediate probability then it was caused by chance
3. Small probability: either chance or design depending on the existence of a "specification"
Specification is a somewhat tricky concept but according to Dembski, function in biology would be a sufficient specification. Ironically, function is also the outcome of the process of natural selection and thus whether the low probability score was caused by our ignorance or because of design is why the design inference remains without content, in case of rarefied design.
Rarefied design: Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized.
The authors observe "There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies."
This is an important observation because it helps us understand why historical sciences can accurately apply 'design inferences' while ID remains scientifically without content.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 1:34PM
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.
Pages please
Your cites are worthless as defenses of your claims Behe & Dembski define ID as an 'absence of science' What pages? What words?
Do you really think that's a clever proof of anything? You are not being very honest here, PvM.
- Highlander
September 10, 2008 1:40PM
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.
Honesty?
I am not sure why Highlander accuses me of not being honest when I provide the information and my explanation. I have shown how both IC and CSI are based on science's inability to explain a particular feature to lead to a conclusion of 'design'. So far I have seen no attempt by Highlander to refute anything I said, other than asserting that I am not being honest.
Telling...
- PvM
September 10, 2008 2:05PM
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.
Until 'proven' otherwise
--Highlander--
The lack of evidence supporting materialist assumptions complexity is a chance arrangement means the opposite could be true. That many of these systems look designed and that science has not (even remotely) demonstrated a chance pathway to such organization, leaves design as the logical alternative. Until proven otherwise.
--
Design always has remained a logical possibility however, ID does nothing to actually demonstrate that such a possibility is actuated. In fact, there is plausible and growing evidence that complexity and information increase are inevitable outcomes of evolutionary processes and while science may remain ignorant about the exact origin and evolution of systems, this does not give ANY credibility to the 'design' arguments, lest we define design to be 'that which science does not yet understand'. But then we should be careful not to use 'bait and switch' and conflate terminology to suggest that this kind of 'design' has any relevance to the concept of Design.
- PvM
September 11, 2008 11:01AM
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.
Well, here we go in their own words
---
These two moves -ruling out regularity, and then ruling out chance -- constitute the design inference. The conception of design that emerges from the design inference is therefore __eliminative__, asserting of an event what it is not, not what it is. To attribute an event to design is to say that regularity and chance hav been ruled out.
...
To be sure, design renders agency plausible. But as the negation of regularity and chance, design is a mode of explanation logically preliminary to agency.
---
p.19 The Design Inference
--
Because the design inference is eliminative, ther is no "design hypothesis" against which the relevant chance hypotheses compete, and which must then be compared within a Bayesian confirmation scheme.
--
p.62 The Design Inference
In "No Free Lunch" Dembski attempts to show that the design inference, which is purely eliminative is not an argument from ignorance, as I have shown, his position is flawed. Others have done so as well, including Fitelson and Sober, Ryan Nichols, Pete Dunkelberg, Mark Perahk, Wesley Elsberry and John Wilkins.
--
Section 2.10 is of especial interest because it addresses the legitimacy of inferring design via an eliminative argument (the concern being that design inferences are arguments from ignorance--as we shall see, they are not).
---
p. 73 No Free Lunch
The argument is one of induction, with all its problems namely that according to Dembski all instances in which we identified specified complexity and we know the causal history, intelligence was involved as well. In fact, Dembski claims that "choice is the defining feature of intelligence and that specified complexity is how in fact we identify choice".
That final phrase dooms Intelligent Design since natural processes of natural selection also have 'choice' and thus such processes fall well within the realm of processes known to be able to generate specified complexity.
--
If the argument were purely eliminative, one might be justified in saying that the move from specified complexity to a designing intelligence is an argument from ignorance (i.1., not X therefore Y).
--
p. 111 No free Lunch
But the argument IS purely eliminative followed by an inductive argument which cannot exclude natural selection as a designer.
Need more?
- PvM
September 11, 2008 1:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
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.
Intelligent Design has Merit
PvM is confused.
The design inference reached based on our knowledge of what nature, operating freely can & cannot do, coupled with our knowledge of what designing agencies can do.
And as with ALL scientific inferences further research can either confirm or refute that inference.
Also if we truly "do not know" then it is a miscarriage of science to disallow the design inference just because some people would rather stick with the "chance & necessity" diatribe.
- Joe G
September 15, 2008 5:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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
--Joe
The design inference reached based on our knowledge of what nature, operating freely can & cannot do, coupled with our knowledge of what designing agencies can do.
---
We do not know that designing agencies can design a genome or a flagella. There is no inference to best explanation.
The design infernence is alo not disallowed, it's just that it cannot compete with the 'we don't know' explanation as it fails to add anything.
SImple really
- PvM
September 15, 2008 9:14AM
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.
PvM is misleading
The design inference reached based on our knowledge of what nature, operating freely can & cannot do, coupled with our knowledge of what designing agencies can do.
---
PvM
We do not know that designing agencies can design a genome or a flagella. There is no inference to best explanation.
---
We look at the options. And the anti-ID option is "it just happened". We do have direct observatiuons of agencies designing rotary motors. We have NEVER observed nature, operating freely, even come close.
----
PvM
The design infernence is alo not disallowed, it's just that it cannot compete with the 'we don't know' explanation as it fails to add anything.
---
The design inference is disallowed. And experience tells us it makes all the difference in the world whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or by nature, operating freely.
And also it is not "we don't know" because all the textbooks are teaching that a designer was not involved.
So when it comes to teaching the theory of evolution the only real answer is "we don't know"- as in we don't know whether or not the transformations required by universal common descent are even possible via any amount of accumulated mutations.
Very simple really...
- Joe G
September 15, 2008 10:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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 design allowed?
Joe argues that the 'design inference is disallowed" and we agree to the extent that it fails to be scientifically relevant a posteriori but of course, it is never disallowed a priori.
--Joe
We look at the options. And the anti-ID option is "it just happened".
--
On the contrary, that's what ID's 'explanation' is "poof"
All textbooks teach that a designer was not "required" which is not the same as "not involved".
So let's accept the vacuity of ID and move to real science. So what evidence do you have that UCD is not possible through the accumulation of mutations?
I understand why you want to abandon discussing ID, I would also hate to have to defend it.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 10:54AM
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.
No design allowed
Joe
We look at the options. And the anti-ID option is "it just happened".
--
PvM
On the contrary, that's what ID's 'explanation' is "poof"
---
That's false. Thank you for demonstrating your dishonesty. BTW you don't have an explanation.
---
PvM:
All textbooks teach that a designer was not "required" which is not the same as "not involved".
----
There isn't anything that supports that concept. All our exoperience tells us a designer is required.
------
PvM
So let's accept the vacuity of ID and move to real science. So what evidence do you have that UCD is not possible through the accumulation of mutations?
-----
LoL- YOUR position is vacuous. And there isn't any data that shows an accumulation of mutations can do what you say they did.
THAT is how science works- by actually demonstrating the premise you hold.
---
PvM
I understand why you want to abandon discussing ID, I would also hate to have to defend it.
----
I understand why you don't want to discuss your position. It is totally based on faith.
- Joe G
September 17, 2008 5:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
I understand
Joe, I do...
--
That's false. Thank you for demonstrating your dishonesty. BTW you don't have an explanation.
--
In fact, it is true. Let me show you: How does ID explain the bacterial flagella.
As to UCD and mutations, the best explanation is that variations, selection as well as drift can indeed explain the observed data. After all, the mutation rates needed to explain the differences between species are well within the range of observed mutation rates.
I understand though why you want to move the discussion from ID, which explains nothing, to UcD and mechanisms.
Show us either how ID explains UcD or how mutation rates need to be too high for UcD.
Surprise us with some real science.
- PvM
September 17, 2008 9:03AM
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.
Wrong again
--Joe
We look at the options. And the anti-ID option is "it just happened". We do have direct observatiuons of agencies designing rotary motors. We have NEVER observed nature, operating freely, even come close.
--
No the scientific position is 'we don't know'. Surely you should realize that misrepresenting the scientific position does little for your argument. And there are more than just two options. Chance, regularity, already provide two possibilities, not to mention the countless variations on this theme.
Remind me again how ID 'explains' the bacterial flagellum? After all, was it not claimed to be an inference to the best explanation. Are you saying that there is no explanation?
Weird, why would they then call it an inference to best explanation?...
What do you think?
--
So when it comes to teaching the theory of evolution the only real answer is "we don't know"- as in we don't know whether or not the transformations required by universal common descent are even possible via any amount of accumulated mutations.
--
Again missing the point, the 'we don't know' explanation is countered by real positive scientific hypotheses and these hypotheses have rendered the 'we don't know' hypothesis much less relevant. Of course minor questions still remain but the idea that there must be limits to evolution that would make common descent impossible are at best wishful thinking.
It's sad how you continue to misunderstand science.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 9:43PM
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.
We don't know
Joe:
We look at the options. And the anti-ID option is "it just happened". We do have direct observatiuons of agencies designing rotary motors. We have NEVER observed nature, operating freely, even come close.
--
PvM:
No the scientific position is 'we don't know'.
---
Then that is what should be on just about every page of a biology textbook- "We don't know". Yet instead we find that things "evolved" without even knowing whether or not the transformation is even possible.
BTW PvM regularity arose by chance in the anti-ID scenario.
The laws that govern nature "just are the way they are" - Stephen Hawking. IOW once again you don't have an explanation.
BTW PvM the scientific answer to UCD is "we don't know". So why is it OK for YOU to make an inference- UCD- when we don't know, but it is wrong for IDists to make an infer3ence when it is based on observations, data and experience?
- Joe G
September 17, 2008 5:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
UcD
--JoeG
BTW PvM the scientific answer to UCD is "we don't know". So why is it OK for YOU to make an inference- UCD- when we don't know, but it is wrong for IDists to make an infer3ence when it is based on observations, data and experience?
---
Nope, the scientific fact shows UcD, the mechanisms through which UcD can be explained ,again are not 'we don't know' but rather observed sources of variation as well as processes such as drift and selection.
ID makes no inference based on obsevations, data and experience, it merely lifts its hands when seeing the data and argues, that because we do not know how it happened, it should be 'designed'.
We all know how that led Newton astray, ID is not much better than that.
What positive evidence for ID exists to explain UcD? Poof?
For science we can actually point to countless evidences that show not only the fact of UcD, a fact even some better informed ID proponents like Behe have to accept, but also science can point to actual observed mechanisms to explain.
All ID can do is say 'but but but'....
Thanks for your contribution as it demonstrates the vacuity of ID combined with the ignorance needed to reach such a conclusion.
PS: We do know that things evolved, the question is merely how. ID fails to propose any explanations beyond 'well it must have been designed' while science shows how natural processes of variation and chance serve as the 'designer'.
That my friend is why ID has no cotent.
- PvM
September 17, 2008 9:09AM
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.
Futher research
--And as with ALL scientific inferences further research can either confirm or refute that inference.--
Sure, just like 'we don't know' generates the same research or more than 'design (wink wink)' did it.
So at best ID is nothing more than the 'we don't know' position, but rather than calling it ignorance, they call it 'design'. What a bait and switch.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 9:27AM
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.
Wrong again
As I said earlier experience demonstrates that it matters a great deal to an investigation whether or not that which is being investigated occurred via agency involvement or by nature, operating freely.
There is just no getting around that fact.
As for the "bait and switch"- that would be you. Who else would say "we don't know" and then allow the teaching of the "no design allowed" position?
"We don't know but we do know a designer wasn't involved."
- Joe G
September 15, 2008 10:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Nonsense
--
"We don't know but we do know a designer wasn't involved."
--
That's not how science works my confused ID proponent.
The fact remains, that, even in your response, you have failed to show that ID is scientifically relevant.
For that I thank you, it's most educational when one can provide some 'live examples'
- PvM
September 15, 2008 10:56AM
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 know how science is SUPPOSED to work
PvM- the quote-"We don't know but we do know a designer wasn't involved."
is YOUR position. And thank you for telling us that is not how science works.
BTW ID is scientifically relevant because experience demonstrates that it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature, operating freely.
I take it you have never investigated anything in your life.
Also only ID will lead us to understand that DNA and RNA are similar to a computer's harddrive. That is they are data carrying mediums. That is the data is NOT the sequence but it rides on the sequence- just like a computer disk isn't the data but the data rides on the disk.
- Joe G
September 17, 2008 5:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
And more vacuity from ID
ID can be scientifically relevant if it were to take the scientific approaches used by real science, such as criminology which uses means, motives, opportunities etc. It is simple to show that ID is without content by showing how ID proponents refuse to answer the simple question
How does ID explain the bacterial flagella?
Chirp, chirp.
Yes, it matters if something arose throuugh agency or not, the problem is that ID's chosen method has doomed it to remain without content.
As to your claims about DNA, and RNA, your claims are at best wishful thinking. Science has done far more for our understanding here than ID will ever do.
How does ID explain DNA or RNA?
Let me guess, it's that poof thing again.
- PvM
September 17, 2008 9:13AM
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.
An example of ignorance and misleading statements
In a recent article, Casey Luskin addresses the recent findings that changes in a regulatory gene can help explain the morphological differences between the chimpansee and humans.
Luskin however continues the somewhat ignorant statement that this shows how junk dna is not always junk. However, what Luskin does not tell you is that 1) Junk dna was introduced to describe initially pseudogenes etc 2) that regulatory genes were in fact already recognized and never considered junk 3) that said 'regulatory' genes are well conserved and under strong selection.
In other words, these findings strengthen, not weaken the argument. Furthermore, the research shows a change of I believe 18 nucleotides out of 80 or so, responsible for the regulation.
In fact, early papers had already pointed out that much of the morphological differences between chimps and humans are likely due to regulatory gene changes.
Now I understand that Luskin, who is a lawyer, may have been confused by how the popular press portrayed the findings but since he works for an organization which claims its goals are to correct errors in reporting, one would have hoped that Luskin would have quoted from the original research rather than from popular press.
Prabhakar S and 9 others. 2008. Human-specific gain of function in a developmental enhancer. Science 321:1346 - 1350. doi:10.1126/science.1159974
Wray GA, Babbitt CC. 2008. Enhancing gene regulation. Science 321:1300-1301. doi:10.1126/science.1163568
And for those wondering how ID explains these findings, of course, it doesn't, it does not deal in answering such 'pathetic questions', just ask Dembski.
- PvM
September 26, 2008 10:08AM
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.
Were we created by design?
The question is somewhat meaningless because you can believe that we were created by Design and still conclude that Intelligent Design, as proposed by the Discovery Institute and its fellows, is a scientifically vacuous concept.
For instance, many theistic evolutionists have no problem accepting both the design aspect as a faith element as well as science as providing the best explanation as to 'how'. The problem with ID is that it attempts to argue that the 'how', in the form of evolutionary theory, is somehow unable to explain this. And yet, the concept of a front loading design, is well within the paradigm of how ID approaches the issue and although ID proponents are quick to reject front loading since they have accepted an active participating deity on faith, the simple reality is that a God who set all in motion with the Big Bang, is as much part of the ID explanation as a God who is involved at every single moment in time and space. However, the former is much better supported by the evidence than the latter, for obvious reasons. To counter, ID proponents argue that evolutionary mechanisms lack purpose and are random, both of course are misleading and flawed arguments.
First, the concept of purpose or teleology is a complex one, where purpose and function are easily confused and thus when we see the outcome of evolutionary processes that lead to function, one may be tempted to conflate this with purpose. Secondly, evolutionary theory is not random, although aspects of evolutionary theory involve neutral evolution, which involves changes in the genome which are near neutral and have no significant benefit or cost to the organism, evolutionary theory also includes the Darwinian concept of natural selection, which is by definition strongly non-random.
ID proponents try to counter this with, yes but random or regular processes cannot explain complexity and information. Which is sort of tautological in ID speak since whenever such processes can explain a complex system with information, the complexity disappears by definition. Since ID proponents often conflate terminology like the concept of information, and attempt to argue that they really mean Shannon information, the simple observation that processes of variation and selection can in fact create information in the genome, in the Shannon sense, undermines any argument ID may have.
So what have we determined so far? That scientists can both accept the religious concept of 'design' and still do science without accepting the flawed and scientifically vacuous approaches of ID. In fact, many such Christian scientists would argue that ID not just remains without scientific content but also that its theological claims undermine Christian faith. For instance, imagine, and not much imagination is needed given the recent research, that science finds a more detailed explanation of the bacterial flagellum, which is the cause celebre of the ID movement? This would mean that science has disproven ID, or has it? If it has disproven ID then indeed ID may have some scientific value but why would ID want to open up religious faith to an unreliable design inference? History has shown us plenty of examples where 'design' was falsified, even Newton flunked here. Of course, the reality is that ID is never placing the 'designer' at risk because it is not an argument for Design but rather an argument against evolutionary theory. So all it has done is made a claim that "science cannot explain X" and science has done what it does so well, show that the lack of explanation was based on our ignorance not some mystical 'design' explanation. In other words, ID's proposal is not one which proposed an alternative explanation, in fact, it is not better than "science does not yet understand how X happened", but rather proposes that a particular scientific hypothesis cannot explain 'X'. By careful bait and switch and a confusion that evidence against a particular evolutionary hypothesis should be counted as evidence in favor of design, ID manages to avoid a scientific formulation of design and still pretend that it proposes a scientifically relevant hypothesis in favor of design.
Clever bunch but in the end, vacuous as well.
So "were we created by design"? As a Christian I fully accept this. However, I still reject Intelligent Design's approach not just because it is scientifically without any content but also because I believe it is misleading and dangerous from a theological perspective.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 10:07AM
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.
Let's Start By Defining Terms
All too often the terms of this debate don't get defined. It's hard to know what is being debated when readers don't know what the NCSE, ARI or AU mean when they say evolution, or when they refer to intelligent design.
Specifically, when defining intelligent design it's important to note that what is most often reported in the media is NOT in any way a definition of the theory that ID proponents subscribe too. You usually see something along the lines of "life is so complicated it must have been designed by a higher power." That is not at all how the leading proponents of ID describe the theory. That is how critics like the NCSE or ACLU describe theory.
According to the theory of intelligent design, certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. This definition can be found at: www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php .
Scientist who support intelligent design seek evidence of design in nature, and argue that such evidence points to intelligent design, based on our historical knowledge of cause and effect. Intelligent design theorists argue in favor of design theory based on the recognition of things like the rich digital information in DNA and the complex molecular machines found in cells. They do so because invariably we know from experience that complex systems possessing such features always arise from intelligent causes. For instance, the DNA molecule is embedded with an immense amount of information. In our uniform and repeated experience, information only comes from minds (read: intelligence). So why should we attribute the information in DNA to a mindless process like Darwinian evolution? ID scientists think we should not. Obviously, ID is an inference from the evidence, not from religious scriptures or practices.
So, intelligent design theory is not an argument based on what we don’t know, but rather an argument from what we do know.
Defining what biological evolution is:
There are three simple, but very different definitions of biological evolution. When speaking with people about the issue it is important to ask them which definition of evolution they are using.
1) Change over time (even billions of years, most leading ID proponents believe the universe is billions of years old)
2) Common ancestry, all forms of life evolved from a single original life form
3) Natural selection acting on random mutation is the primary mechanism by which life forms have evolved.
ID scientists do not have a problem with definition #1. There is some debate over definition #2, but it is not incompatible with ID. Definition #3, commonly referred to as Darwinian Evolution, is a specific part of evolution that ID challenges and is the heart of Darwin’s theory. Be sure you know what people mean when they say “evolution.”
Intelligent design is not the same as creationism. Creationism is usually defined by these tenets:
• The universe, energy and life were created from nothing.
• The earth is young, in the range of 6,000 to 10,000 years.
• Earth's geology can be explained by catastrophic events, primarily a worldwide flood.
• Mutations and natural selection cannot bring about the development of all living things from a single organism.
- Robert Crowther September 9, 2008 11:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Confusion
Rob Crowther Claims:
According to the theory of intelligent design, certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
This is a somewhat meaningless position, as it provides no methods to determine the how and thus cannot make a claim that it is best explained by an intelligent cause. In fact, when looking at how ID defines its approaches, it quickly becomes clear that ID lacks any positive explanation and thus lacks the support for the hypothesis that ID "best explain[s]".
Furthermore, natural selection is not an undirected process, in fact, it is in many ways not dissimilar from 'intelligent selection', hence Darwin's appeal to breeders in furthering his argument. In both cases, choices are made and the future generation's genetic make-up changes under the processes of heritable variation and selection (whether natural or 'intelligent'). As such, without further explanations, ID has an interesting thesis but provides no way of resolving let alone providing a 'better explanation' to evolutionary theory which contains but is not limited to "natural selection".
So does ID have a "better explanation"? Ask yourself, how does ID propose to detect 'design', how does it propose to 'infer a designer' and how does their approach hold up in reality?
1. It proposes to detect design through elimination of processes of chance or regularity. Remember that the definition of Design is the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction chance or regularity". While chance may need no further explanation, regularity refers to a law like process. What is important to notice is that ID is not clear if it includes 'stochastic processes' since such processes typically contain both a regularity component and a chance component (also known as noise where noise is a concept which includes 'unknown processes').
This means that in order to infer 'design' ID needs to eliminate any and all known and unknown processes of chance or (and?) regularity, not a very easy task and in fact, Dembski argues that the design inference is "useless" if it includes false positives. Yet, we all know from history that design inferences have been inherently unreliable in cases of the "supernatural". So what is going on here? In case of the supernatural, we have no ways to constrain the designer and thus it can explain anything and in the end explains nothing. To understand this, realize that "a magic pink unicorn created life last thursday" is under such rules a plausible scenario and yet... So if we cannot constrain the explanation, ID cannot even venture to compete with our ignorance, which is basically the position when all known processes of chance or (and?) regularity have been eliminated. And yet, evolutionary theory, which deals in positive explanations does have a way to render itself as a best explanation because it can in fact compete with "we don't know" since it proposes positive hypotheses. ID however is not in the business of providing any explanations. And here we often see a 'bait and switch' approach in which ID argues that since 'intelligent design' can be successfully detected in such historical sciences as criminology and archaeology, it therefor must be the case that it can also be extended to include the "supernatural" or "rarefied" variant of design. This is however a misleading suggestion since in case of historical sciences, one does not rely on a fully eliminative approach and then conclude, well, we don't know how to explain this, thus design. In fact, in for instance criminology we deal with concepts of means, motives, opportunity, alibis, physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, eye witnesses etc to create a case "beyond credible doubt", in other words, a competing hypothesis.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 11:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
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.
Confusion part 2
2. So far, many people have yet to realize that the concept of 'design' as defined by ID is actually quite limited. In fact, few seem to be familiar with the major concessions made by William Dembski.
--
Before I proceed, however, I note that Dembski makes an important concession to his critics. He refuses to make the second assumption noted above. When the EF implies that certain systems are intelligently designed, Dembski does not think it follows that there is some intelligent designer or other. He says that, "even though in practice inferring design is the first step in identifying an intelligent agent, taken by itself design does not require that such an agent be posited. The notion of design that emerges from the design inference must not be confused with intelligent agency" (TDI, 227).
--
Source: Ryan Nichols, The Vacuity of Intelligent Design Theory (TDI: The Design Inference, William Dembski)
In other words, design does not imply designer, and in fact, as people such as Wesley Elsberry have shown, Intelligent Design cannot even exclude natural selection as a 'designer'.
Crowther then continues to confuse the terminology of 'complexity and information' while ignoring that science has shown how processes of regularity and chance can in principle explain complexity and information, and thus ID, which lacks its own positive explanations cannot even compare it to scientific explanations.
And that my friends, is the rest of the story.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 12:00PM
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.
Advocates of ID are missing the point.
The purpose of the spiritual realm has never been to say how, but why.
Spirituality will never give us the most efficient way to run an economy - and computers will never tell us how to live a fulfilling life. The authors of sacred texts never thought they were writing facts - they were writing truths.
- AlibiFarmer
September 9, 2008 1:07PM
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.
Why is the purview of science
"The purpose of the spiritual realm has never been to say how, but why. "
It doesn't even do that very well. 'Why' is what drives scientists as much as how. Trying to figure out why things are the way they are is at the heart of scientific inquiry. The spiritual realm is not about discovering why but about telling you why.
- Kelly
September 13, 2008 7:30PM
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.
Science has never been about basic humanity.
Science is about how things work. The stories, myths and legends of our origins aren't about explaining how creation was accomplished. They are about explaining basic human needs and emotions - and about how man fits with both nature and himself.
Like much great art, they can tell a truth without representing fact. People taking them literally miss the authors' intent.
- AlibiFarmer
September 14, 2008 6:11PM
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.
Not?
Good point, but as an evolutionary biologist I find that not entirely true. And as a matter of fact, several sciences from anthropology to zoology via psychiatry and neurology do tell us a lot about ourselves. But even more so does what we study, and the drive to study in itself.
Besides, I have doubts about the "intents" of the authors of at least some myths being more sophisticated than representing fact as they believed it. That being said, I certainly agree that they do say a lot about our basic human nature.
- Kyrre
May 12, 2009 9:26AM
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.
Even if you mapped the neuron pathways of every thought,....
and could predict the next one, there would still be the question of why it was set up that way. You can never answer that. The evolutionary track, while useful, is blocked by time. It can never reveal the why either.
Those are the questions each of us must come to terms with, if not answer, for ourselves. Religion does provide a framework for many people. A more interesting thought for me is that in Buddhism, the question itself is considered irrelevant. It's not whether there is a God, or any issue of theology that resonates, but how do I adjust myself?
- AlibiFarmer
May 12, 2009 11:18AM
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.
philosophically or scientifically
While that is an interesting question it is hardly a scientific one... and the theory of ID is billed as science not philosophy.
- MrBook
May 12, 2009 7:20PM
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.
That was the point of my original argument.
The the myths and stories of the Bible were never meant to be taken as history in our sense of the word, and certainly not science . The physical record is overwhelming for evolution . Besides, I would HATE to think that there was divine being to blame for things like cancers, birth defects, and the poor design of human teeth.
There are questions for which religion /philosophy/spirituality has no answers just as there are questions which are irrelevant to science. But both are important in terms of coming to terms with ourselves.
- AlibiFarmer
May 13, 2009 8:13AM
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.
Defining Science
This will and is already descending into a debate about the philosophy of science.
The anti ID crowd will insist on a strict materialistic cause and effect definition of science. Falsely assuming creators or a Creator, can not be scientifically known. Meanwhile, hypocritically saying they can know the origins, without adhering to the scientific method.
The anti ID's have stolen science as their private domain, to be used only, to promote their views of the Universe. A view that insist upon a, no Creator (filter). To be put on first, by all scientist. They are entrenched and defending
their hold on science, furiously.
This isn't progressive science. It is holding to an old order that only wants to use science to discover advances that serve the status quo. But does not want to discover anything that would threating that status quo.
Real science and scientist should be free from this tyranny. Free to (follow the evidence, where ever it leads, and to what ever conclusions, brings
more enlightenment.)
Materialist would hold us back in the, present scientific, "dark ages". Where mankind is still crawling on hands and knees. Taking two steps backward for every step forward.
Set the scientist free. Embrace ID.
- jumpstart
September 10, 2008 7:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
ID is not scientifically relevant
--Jumpstart--
The anti ID crowd will insist on a strict materialistic cause and effect definition of science. Falsely assuming creators or a Creator, can not be scientifically known. Meanwhile, hypocritically saying they can know the origins, without adhering to the scientific method.
--
I am glad to hear that Jumpstart admits that ID is all about the supernatural. But he is wrong that scientists falsely claims that science cannot detect creators. That's a red herring which I have already shown to be false. However, ID proponents fail to recognize what kind of designers science has historically been able to reliably detect and which ones remain more elusive.
In fact, Jumpstart should have known that ID itself appeals to historical sciences as evidence that a designer can be known, so the accusation is at best self defeating.
Show me the ID science. Simple question, invariably answered by nothing but
silence
- PvM
September 10, 2008 8:40AM
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.
supernatural=scientific gaps
When materialist impose the supernatural, all they are doing is saying; "somethings are beyond being explained through nature and by science". They are saying somethings can't be explained through interpretation of nature.
They know nothing of the same.
Therefore things they define as "supernatural", must remain, ignored. The same adherence to ignorance, I mention in my first post.
Although ID has some appeal to "historical science", Darwinian evolution does even more so. We don't see ID scientist falsely promoting ID as a dogmatic "fact of science"; as we see the mainstream doing with, Darwinism.
The only silence on the subject of ID, is caused by the cotton stuffed into the ears of the materialist.
- jumpstart
September 10, 2008 9:23AM
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.
Gaps of our ignorance.
--Jumpstart--
When materialist impose the supernatural, all they are doing is saying; "somethings are beyond being explained through nature and by science". They are saying somethings can't be explained through interpretation of nature.
---
Why would materialists impose the supernatural? This just does not make sense.
---Jumpstart---
They know nothing of the same.
Therefore things they define as "supernatural", must remain, ignored. The same adherence to ignorance, I mention in my first post.
----
On the contrary, materialists do not ignore the "supernatural", they rather find scientific explanations for said "supernatural" which historically has included a lot of gaps in our knowledge.
--Jumpstart---
Although ID has some appeal to "historical science", Darwinian evolution does even more so. We don't see ID scientist falsely promoting ID as a dogmatic "fact of science"; as we see the mainstream doing with, Darwinism.
---
Of course ID could only wish for it to be a "fact of science". Those darn Newtonians and their dogmatic position.
--Jumpstart---
The only silence on the subject of ID, is caused by the cotton stuffed into the ears of the materialist.
---
Weird, so the reason ID proponents refuse to share their research is because they are materialists?
It should be clear by now that science does not fill gaps with promissory notes but rather with hard work or a simple admission of "we don't know" and that ID proponents wish to assign 'design' to said ignorance as a placeholder while providing no guidance as to how ID will serve to strengthen the 'design inference'.
Simple really...
And jumpstart seems to believe that only "materialists" object to ID, but what about the countless Christians, like me, who have come to reject ID as scientifically vacuous even though we also hold to the concept that our universe was Created? Could it be that this has nothing to do with materialism but all with scientific content or lack thereof?
- PvM
September 10, 2008 9:43AM
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.
The Materialist Mindset
-PvM-
Why would materialists impose the supernatural? This just does not make sense.
-
I do not know why they always do. "I am glad to hear that Jumpstart admits that ID is all about the supernatural." But they are always assigning IDeas, too the supernatural?!
-PvM-
On the contrary, materialists do not ignore the "supernatural", they rather find scientific explanations for said "supernatural" which historically has included a lot of gaps in our knowledge.
-
What they do is, try and find answers that stem from the material. So that nothing, that could be construed as an Intelligent Designer, can be identified by science! Therefore forcing the biggest
gap of all.
-PvM-
Of course ID could only wish for it to be a "fact of science". Those darn Newtonians and their dogmatic position.
-
Very funny. Of course, ID has nothing to do with Newtonians. But thanks for admitting dogma.
-PvM-
It should be clear by now that science does not fill gaps with promissory notes but rather with hard work or a simple admission of "we don't know" and that ID proponents wish to assign 'design' to said ignorance as a placeholder while providing no guidance as to how ID will serve to strengthen the 'design inference'.
-
All that to say, "I don't believe in an Intelligent Designer" (Creator)and even if there is one, that fact wouldn't strengthen the 'design inference', nor would the design inference, strengthen the inference to the designer. Now that
is a materialist mindset.
I reckon we'll have to take your word, on your Christianity.
- jumpstart
September 10, 2008 10:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Christianity
--Jumpstart--
I reckon we'll have to take your word, on your Christianity.
--
Should that not be sufficient? Of course, with me, countless other Christians have come to reject ID, some because it is theologically unsound, most because it is scientifically vacuous.
In Christ
PvM
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:16AM
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.
How so?
If you're tired of debating Pandas, fine. Explain to me what rules of science ID violates.
- F2XL
November 25, 2008 6:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Intelligent Design is simply nonsense.
If Intelligent Design is a valid scientific concept, why is it that we have examples of IDIOTIC design in so many organism, including vertbrates? All their eyes are wired BACKWARDS, making their retinas vulnerable to damage. And there is no good reason for this, because the eyes of cephalopods are wired FORWARDS. It seems that there was a more intelligent Designer for the cephalopod eyes than for the vertebrate eyes.
- Dale Husband
September 10, 2008 11:17PM
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.
you know...
I recently read that after careful study the 'backwards' wiring is essential.. - something to do with cooling? I really can't recall...but considering I don't have a citation to give you - or a link.. what's it matter.
But anyway..I heard a list of reasons that our eyes for functional reasons are wired differently (front to back) I'm sure if you cared to seek them out - you'll find the defense for such 'mistakes'.. it's your dime.
Also.. In man's arrogance he assumes that anything he hasn't found a use or reason for must not have a use or reason... remember junk DNA..... not junk. Remember the 'useless' appendix... not useless. Your view that accidental nature is a great designer is what is nonsense....
Funny how man is scrambling to find any 1 thing they can point to as a 'bad design'... that in itself shows that the design is if anything near perfect. But what's it matter - evolution .. a theory without mechanism.. can design anything!
- lux113
July 21, 2009 5:32AM
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, YOU don't know!
If you are going to comment on something in science , you need to back it up with actual data. Mere assertions count for NOTHING. And your statement that evolution is "a theory without mechanism" is simply wrong. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which is what Darwin identified.
The appendix has a lot of lymphatic tissue which is what you would expect in an organ that no longer has a digestive function but is prone to infection. It's when that tissues fails to function that we get appendicitus. That also shows natural selection in action, as well as its limitations. Indeed, there is plenty of lymphatic tissue and ducts throughout the abdominal region.
My point about the vertebrate eyes being wired backwards and therefore being an example of bad design still stands.
- Dale Husband
July 21, 2009 12:42PM
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.
Yes, it has some merit...
First, I believe that religion is man-made, as are Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, et al. Thus, they truly are the opiate of the masses, and inherently flawed. Religion can be used for good and evil. Nonetheless, that's all it can be used for: a tool. Most of the time, that tool is used for evil, the perpetualization of ignorance and results in misery. Intelligent design has merit, but it has no place in government, schools or courthouses. It is and should remain personal.
However, I think that SOMETHING set all this into motion. I truly believe their is a God, though in what sense, I can't say. I think "God" is best defined as a Great Architect, for my purposes. As an agnostic, I think knowing God is inherently impossible, at least until my life ends, or rather, when and if my spirit dies.
I used to be a practicing christian, but as I evolved and saw how that religion and its worshippers lead through fear and are hypocrites like the rest of us, I moved on. Fear and growth are incompatible, as are ignorance and tolerance.
When I began studying physics and astronomy, though, that knowledge left me believing that there IS a reason for all of this. I guess I could sum it up by saying whatever Architect there is, he, she or it set evolution into motion. Ask yourself this: "if the universe is expanding, what happens when that expansion ceases?" My answer is that it can't be random. If there is an end to our universe, what lies on the other side? For now, that is unknowable. But it won't stop me wondering.
- PSYOP
September 11, 2008 12:10AM
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.
Good queston
--
Ask yourself this: "if the universe is expanding, what happens when that expansion ceases?" My answer is that it can't be random.
--
It collapses. Why can this not be random? Simple, because it depends on the amount of mass in the universe, whether it is open or closed, and whether the expansion is slowing down, or increasing.
However, your 'it can't be random' does not require a designer necessarily since regularities such as laws of nature can explain these behaviors as well.
We humans love to believe we are here for a reason, and I can understand, as a Christian myself, why we may hold positions of faith. However, when I see claims that one can prove the existence of this supernatural entity or entities using science, and then come to realize that the 'science' is nothing more than 'real science cannot explain X' thus 'x should be called designed'.
And that my friends is exactly the foundation of ID.
- PvM
September 11, 2008 9:40AM
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.
My opinions
PvM, those are merely my opinions. I KNOW that the existence of God cannot be proven, then again, it can't be disproven. I never said the universe WAS created, that is just something I WANT to believe. I think it makes me a better person, and adds a certain amount of purpose to my life. That's all it is, opinion.
- PSYOP
September 12, 2008 5:59PM
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.
Your opinions
I cannot argue with your opinions as to what you want to believe. We all seek purpose in life, I fail to see how ID can help us here.
- PvM
September 12, 2008 7:28PM
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.
My opinion
"I fail to see how ID can help us here."
It allows some people to "scientifically" believe in god . Which in turn allows people to see purpose in their life if there is indeed someone above them.
- camdaddy09
August 19, 2009 1:40PM
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.
Scientifically believe?
"It allows some people to "scientifically" believe in god . Which in turn allows people to see purpose in their life if there is indeed someone above them."
- camdaddy09US
What " science " is being used to demonstrate "god"? ID by itself has been trying time and time again to disavow any link with any particular religion's deity, so it almost seems like ID is an assumed premise used to breach the logical gap between existence and . I fail to see any science involved.
- The Dark Ride
August 30, 2009 9:20PM
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.
Ok
I don't really care :|
- camdaddy09
August 30, 2009 10:18PM
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.
actually...
currently science feels it's accelerating... and considering the '13.7 billion years' it's been doing so.. I don't anticipate any collapse... why would it still be accelerating?
the Bible mentions a hint -- 11 times even in 5 chapters... God 'stretched' out the heavens.
Funny how the expansion of the universe is biblical.. yet we have only recently discovered it... but of course - presuming we have a creator can't contribute anything to science! right? How would we know... so few try.
- lux113
July 21, 2009 5:39AM
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.
past tense
"God 'stretched' out the heavens. "
That's the past tense, a process that happened but has since stoped... "God is stretching out the heavens" implies an active process.
- MrBook
July 21, 2009 6:45AM
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.
Why would cosmological expansion cease?
PSYOP asks (rhetorically?): "if the universe is expanding, what happens when that expansion ceases?"
First of all, the expansion of our universe is an observed fact. No "if" about it.
And why would cosmological expansion cease? The same measurements which revealed the effects of some "dark energy" indicate that the expansion is accelerating. If that is so then the question is mooted.
- sean s
September 24, 2008 9:50AM
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.
and as I just said to someone else..
the expansion of the universe is biblically supported. 11 times it says God 'stretched' out the heavens...- it is said 11 times for obvious emphasis.
you can scoff all you want at that reference... but what remains is the fact that we have only recently discovered the universes expansion.. the Bible pointed to it all along.
- lux113
July 21, 2009 5:43AM
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.
It can be used
So if the Bible can be used as a source for scientific discovery or guidance then what else in there can be demonstrated to be true scientifically? By what process did God 'stretch out' the heavens, where does God get the energy to do so?
- MrBook
July 21, 2009 6:49AM
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.
lol
I'm hardly the authority for all the great questions in life.. and these debates make me feel as if I'm submitted as being so.. or required to be so.... That doesn't mean I don't have an answer... it just means it might not be correct... I'm flawed like everyone.
As I already said.. the Bible is not meant to be a science handbook... but it does profess to being correct in every detail.. since it is divinely inspired. Thus it can be useful as the tool to verify God exists. One aspect of that is the reason there is an 'old' and 'new' testament... the old testament largely consisted of future predictions - such as those in Isaiah - the new testament was verification that these predictions came to pass. These are discounted by people by claiming they were written after the fact.. though I think the dead sea scrolls show otherwise - and I believe the Bible's teachings were written even earlier than this - and passed in verbal form even further back.
Also in many regards you can find on the internet long lists of Bible statements which were not common scientific knowledge at the time.. As is with all things.. people attack many of them on many levels... One such statement in the Bible is that the world is described as a circle..this was completely unknown at the time - those who discredit the statement point out that the hebrew word could also be translated as 'circuit' or 'compass'....though obviously that wouldn't make as much sense..
'It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers'
that one is from Isaiah 40:22... and is old testament.. very ancient stuff. 740-680 b.c. is commonly held. The point being.. just when in history did we learn the earth was circular? Around 300 years later Aristotle proposed the idea in his book 'on the heavens'.. but it wasn't accepted as a given.
one nice example of Biblical 'science'
''He [ god ] hangs the earth on nothing''
first off..this is from Job - and as I recall that was old testament stuff as well -definitely B.C. - which I believe is in the dead sea scrolls as well.. at the time people had various beliefs about the earth... whether it be it was on the backs of infinite turtles or the like... and many other views -. but the knowledge that the earth floats in space was not known as a fact.
There are other examples.. and of course they can be debated on different levels.. one being the translation.. another being the date written.. and third the exact meaning implied..
The point is not that the Bible should be used as a science handbook - it was never intended to be so..that was never it's intended purpose. The point is that this 'primitive' text is consistent with science - and appears to be ahead of it's time from the things it points out, some of which would ironically be heresy at the time. There's much more.. but I'm not going to list them all.. descriptions of the process of water evaporation and clouds.. things like that - which may sound unimpressive until you consider what people of the time commonly knew about weather. Also.. scientists typically wonder why the Bible doesn't contain some more obvious reference.. like say to the DNA double helix.. or something similar.. though this would definitely be convenient -- it goes directly against God's purposes... as I mentioned to you before - it is necessary for God to maintain 'plausible deniability'.. a rough balance... he has to give enough evidence to support belief - yet not so much that it would make faith unnecessary - a mention of something such as DNA would clearly destroy this... (though I assume some still wouldn't believe... man's capacity for disbelief, especially these days, is amazing).
as far as your question..
Where does God get the energy to do so?..
You are kidding right?
- lux113
July 21, 2009 8:37AM
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.
not kidding
“I'm hardly the authority for all the great questions in life.. and these debates make me feel as if I'm submitted as being so.. or required to be so.... That doesn't mean I don't have an answer... it just means it might not be correct... I'm flawed like everyone.”
But they are the answers you have come to. That makes the question of HOW you got to those valid in my book.
“As I already said.. the Bible is not meant to be a science handbook... but it does profess to being correct in every detail.. since it is divinely inspired.”
Then it can be used to make accurate predictions of physical phenomena, because it is ‘correct in every detail’.
“Thus it can be useful as the tool to verify God exists. One aspect of that is the reason there is an 'old' and 'new' testament... the old testament largely consisted of future predictions - such as those in Isaiah - the new testament was verification that these predictions came to pass. These are discounted by people by claiming they were written after the fact.. though I think the dead sea scrolls show otherwise –“
How so? The DSS have been dated to between 150 BCE and 70 CE… however that is using dating methods that you have already declared to be inaccurate. How do would you verify the age of the scrolls to ensure that they are really from that time and not written ‘after the fact’.
Also, what third party verifiable events were predicted in the Bible?
“and I believe the Bible's teachings were written even earlier than this - and passed in verbal form even further back.”
That may be, but how do you demonstrate that? How did you, logically, come to that belief?
“Also in many regards you can find on the internet long lists of Bible statements which were not common scientific knowledge at the time.. As is with all things.. people attack many of them on many levels... One such statement in the Bible is that the world is described as a circle..this was completely unknown at the time –“
How so? What is the verifiable age of that statement?
The circular nature of the Earth comes out quite easily when you start doing astronomy… it can be seen using very primitive tools (two wells positioned at different latitudes can be used to run rough calculations… which both the Egyptians and the Greeks did). An interpretation of Vedic texts (from what is now India) that date to around the same time can also be interpreted as to a spherical Earth… in many ways it is clearer because it can be interpreted to indicate the sun moving around the Earth.
"The [sun] never really sets or rises. In that they think of him “He is setting,” having reached the end of the day, he inverts himself; thus he makes evening below, day above. Again in that they think of him “He is rising in the morning,” having reached the end of the night he inverts himself; thus he makes day below, night above. He never sets; indeed he never sets."
-Aitareya Brahmana vrs. 4.18
“'It is He who sits above the circle of the Earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers'”
That is an observation that anyone who has stood on a high point can make… from a distance above you can see in a circle around you, and things do look smaller. It is in no way contradictory to what anyone at that time could have understood, nor necessarily indicative of the Earth as a circle.
The Earth is spherical after all, not a circle. If the statement was translated as ‘above the sphere of the Earth’ then a case could be made.
- MrBook
July 21, 2009 5:29PM
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.
not kidding pt 2.
“that one is from Isaiah 40:22... and is old testament.. very ancient stuff. 740-680 b.c. is commonly held. The point being.. just when in history did we learn the Earth was circular? Around 300 years later Aristotle proposed the idea in his book 'on the heavens'.. but it wasn't accepted as a given.”
Yet the concept of a circular Earth is far older then that. Indian texts dating back to 1000 BCE can be interpreted just as easily to indicate a spherical planet.
''He [ god ] hangs the Earth on nothing'
But the Earth is not hung on nothing, it is tethered by the laws of gravity.
first off..this is from Job - and as I recall that was old testament stuff as well -definitely B.C. - which I believe is in the dead sea scrolls as well.. at the time people had various beliefs about the Earth... whether it be it was on the backs of infinite turtles or the like... and many other views -. but the knowledge that the Earth floats in space was not known as a fact.
And what of the passages that are interpreted by geocentrists about fixing the Earth in the ferment?
“The point is not that the Bible should be used as a science handbook - it was never intended to be so..that was never it's intended purpose.”
Yet you have said that the Bible is ‘correct in every detail’ and thus that it’s description of the creation of the Earth is scientific fact. You have even stated that the phrases about ‘ stretching ’ are describing the accelerating universe. Thus the Bible can be used to determine new theories as well. After all if scientists had paid more attention to the Bible then the accelerating universe would not have been a surprise to them (remember that an accelerating universe was not among the original three outcomes of our observations regarding the expanding universe).
“The point is that this 'primitive' text is consistent with science - and appears to be ahead of it's time from the things it points out, some of which would ironically be heresy at the time.”
Remember that scholars of that time knew that the Earth was round (it is surprisingly easy to prove really). Indeed the Greeks were very close to showing that the Earth revolved around the sun, put off only because they had miscalculated the size of the universe (lacking telescopes they could not correctly calculate stellar distances using parallax)
“descriptions of the process of water evaporation and clouds..”
Which can easily be observed by the people at that time, Aristotle himself gave crude descriptions of cloud formation processes.
“it goes directly against God's purposes... as I mentioned to you before - it is necessary for God to maintain 'plausible deniability'.. a rough balance... he has to give enough evidence to support belief - yet not so much that it would make faith unnecessary”
What about all the stuff in the Old Testament? Huge tracts of that book are devoted to God explicitly existing… The Flood, Sodom and Gomorra, the Seven Plagues, the Burning Bush, the Parting of the Red Sea. There is no plausible deniability when you are walking across the floor of the Red Sea.
“Where does God get the energy to do so?..
You are kidding right?”
No, I’m not. Or is this a ‘God did it’ point where we cannot go any further? Is there no possible physical explanation for this phenomenon?
- MrBook
July 21, 2009 5:30PM
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.
It by definition is still going to come down to faith part 1
Yes, God is by his nature - supernatural. That's not an excuse.. It's a core concept. So just by that nature some things are likely to not be measurable.. or have materialistic explanations. Including 'where God got the energy ' to create the universe. Although, possibly through science there may be a way to measure such a thing.. possibly it relates to dark matter.. and dark energy? But at this point I truly couldn't say.. and considering I'm not 'in the field' - I'd really have to depend on what is presented to us like most people.. and judge from the data.
Many things would leave signs... often creationist's view the big bang with mixed feelings.. because in one hand it seems to confirm creation.. but also conflicts. Even though I believe the big bang theory is flawed.. it does give an example of what I mean by signs.. - Then it comes down to comparing the biblical narrative with our scientific understanding.. To test what agrees..This is why the age of the earth and Genesis have received so much focus - although an old earth doesn't truly rule out the bible 's authority - it does leave creationists with a genesis which is symbolic.. not literal.. You could still believe in God.. but the weight of the argument would be dramatically lessened. Though geology feels it's an open and shut case... there are plenty of questions - if the Grand Canyon is the result of millions of years of erosion... where would the land from that erosion end up? It doesn't appear to be there. - also why is the river that is claimed to have created it so drastically small in comparison... a catastrophic flood doesn't suffer from these types of problems.
As far as the miracles of the Bible... including those of the life of Christ - these were necessary at the time for the purposes of that same 'plausible deniability' I spoke of.. it served to build God's case for believers. I never said that God doesn't do miracles.. for that matter the reason I'm so positive of God's existence is through things which happened in my own life. Since they are personal experiences they don't have weight with other people.. only for me. It left nothing physical - no faces of Jesus in pancake batter.. or anything I can point to as an example.. But definitely in some cases in the past as well as currently God reveals himself in a way to some people which leaves no chance of denying..(but oddly enough.. there were those who witnessed these things that still didn't believe) But generally speaking, parting the red sea.. and things of this nature occurred during biblical times and not now... These things were deliberately done by God during a time period that proving them would be very difficult... yet there should be signs of them happening if we look. To summarize.. it was necessary at one point in history for God to make himself more clearly known.. for him to take a more visibly active part in the world.
What was known at that time in history is debatable.. like the earth being 'round'. There were pockets of scholars at the time that had views on these things.. - but it's not as if they had a printing press. Although really the point of mentioning a round world.. or a mentioning of the world hanging on nothing. (which seems to imply gravity to me... though the line is 'poetic' it is an accurate description.. it truly hangs on nothing) but anyway.. the point of these lines is more that they do not disagree with science.. creation myths from different civilizations throughout time cannot make that claim - they often do disagree with known science .. matter of fact more often than they agree with it.
- lux113
July 22, 2009 4:09AM
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.
Where did the energy come from?
First of all, the Bible is not a science book. But what it does says about Gods creation is scientifically true. In science there is a first cause that is beyond direct observation. This is called the Unified Force. In religion the Unified Force is called God. Where did God get the energy to "stretch out" the universe? He didn't. He was the energy.
- mike1948
July 25, 2009 11:42PM
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.
God of the Gap
Science can never conclusively prove that there is no God (unless proof of another god is somehow found)... so it is always 'possible' to push the 'God did it' into those gaps in our knowledge. However Science has consistently pushed into those areas where it was formerly declared 'God did it'
The forces behind the creation of the cosmos do not care in the least for the actions of humans, lumps of self amusing, self replicating proteins sandwiched between layers of clay, that we are.
- MrBook
July 26, 2009 8:51AM
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.
Yes, It does!
Intelligent design does have merit. However it maybe useful
to use clearer terms then, "intelligent design". (Designed with for knowledge of purpose), is much more to the point.
Macro Evolution is all about, problem solving mechanisms, spontaneously generating.
It is difficult, even improbable to imagine how such a process could happen; without being jump started. There are as many opposing forces in the environment as there are beneficial. How could, fragile, non-evolved life, survive in a hostile environment? Further, what would cause successful
designs to leave one environment, for a totally alien environments? Sea life too land life.
There would be nothing that would lead a successful species, to make such a drastic move from one environment to a totally alien one, and fill the earth. Unless we view the environment as an intelligent entity.. IF such change was forced upon a species by catastrophic events, the species would become extinct; before random mutation, could find the correct body designs, to allow survival.
So not only is the survival of the first life improbable, without pre-designed survival mechanisms. Life evolving drastic body plan changes, to survive in totally different environments. Is also unlikely to have happened. I don't believe an honest mind could conclude this happened incrementally over eons of time. No matter how much time is involved, because with that idea, your always putting the cart before the horse.
The designed (cart) can be pulled by the environment (horse). But a horse
cannot build a cart. Neither can it change a cart into a boat or airplane.
The mindless environment can't do anything, without a pre-designed mechanism.
We don't see the environment incubating new life, or totally new body plans today.
Why would we conclude it only happened in the past;
in a even more hostel environment?!
- jumpstart
September 11, 2008 8:14AM
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.
Thanks
Jumpstart helps us understand the eliminative nature of ID
--
It is difficult, even improbable to imagine how such a process could happen; without being jump started.
--
In other words, his lack of imagination or familiarity with science causes him to propose the need for a designer.
Ignorance is a powerful foundation for ID causing it to remain scientifically irrelevant.
PS: Contrary to his musings, selection and variation are highly plausible, all that is needed is variation, inheritance and a fitness difference. And while science may not have all the answers to origin of life, it has done far more science in this area to resolve this than ID could even dream of.
Ah the power of ignorance.
- PvM
September 11, 2008 9:24AM
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.
Question.
How did life begin?
- camdaddy09
August 19, 2009 1:46PM
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.
There is no such thing as an ID expert
Saying there are experts on Intelligent Design is like saying there are experts on astrology.
ID is a pseudoscience. The best definition of pseudoscience comes from Prof. Thagard at the univ. of Wisconsin.
"A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if:
1. it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but
2. the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in ralation to others, and is selective in considering confirmation and disconfirmations."
http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/PH29A/thagard.html
- jaa September 12, 2008 4:06PM
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.
Yes, there is design ...
What always gets me with the Intelligent Design crowd is that, in their aim of inserting an external designer into the mix of biological science, they seem to miss or deliberately avoid one glaring fact - once life exists, with varying degrees of success, life designs itself according to the rules established by its environment and its own specific nature. Life needs no external designer. It has the power to design itself over time. Each of us is the design - conscious or not - of our two parents, or rather, of the egg and sperm that joined to create us. Some chance and some decision-making, some design is involved. Our parents, in turn, are the chance and deliberate design of their parents before them and so on. We purposely select our mates and the environment determines whether our coupling is successful or not. No matter the species, a great amount of examination and decision-making is involved one generation to the next. That is design, however, it is life designing life.
Of course, how life first appeared is a separate issue. Nevertheless, knowledge of exactly what happened is not the same as mere supposition. Hard objective science will provide the answers to our questions. Supposition remains mere supposition unless it is followed by indisputable facts. Could the basic blocks for life been externally inserted upon the Earth by intelligent beings? Perhaps, however, before one intends to teach such as knowledge, it must be more than mere imagination. If the evidence substantially supports such a proposition, then, by all means, integrate it into "what we know" and relate such knowledge to children so that they too will have your understanding. If one's imagination remains mere imagination without substantiation by objective facts, then do not behave criminally by relaying it to children as knowledge when it is clearly not.
- Naumadd
September 12, 2008 4:52PM
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.
School
This is the age old question. This has been the battle of philosophers for all of time. Great minds have struggled with it. Nations have died fighting over it. Are we created or an accident? Are we machines choosing between incorrect and correct responses, or are we sentient being choosing between good and evil? How could you not teach this?
- Oasthad September 15, 2008 7:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Sunday school
--Oasthad
Are we machines choosing between incorrect and correct responses, or are we sentient being choosing between good and evil? How could you not teach this?
--
That's a good topic for sunday school. As far as I can tell, this is part of the message they are teaching.
What more do you want
- PvM
September 15, 2008 9:18AM
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.
ID explains nothing
ID is offered as an explanation for the complexity of life on Earth, which, according to ID proponents, cannot be explained by random chance and survival of the fittest.
But ID suffers a fatal flaw. If we have to hypothesize an intelligent designer to explain life, then we need to hypothesize another intelligent designer to explain that intelligent designer, which also could not have come about from random chance. We then need to explain the second intelligent designer with a third, and so on ad infinitum. There are only two ways to end this infinite regression. First we could accept that intelligence and complex life CAN come about by random chance, and that the first intelligent designer in this regression did exactly that. But if we do this, then why not just accept that WE came about by random chance and avoid the need for any regression? Second, we could hypothesize a supernatural god that did not need to be designed by a previous intelligent designer (maybe god is a self-designing designer?). But if we do this, then ID clearly becomes a religious argument, something ID proponents in this debate have denied.
At this point no one can explain how life/intelligence formed on this planet. But human ignorance does not constitute evidence for an even more complex and inexplicable intelligence. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it can not be explained.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
September 18, 2008 6:29AM
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.
Casey Luskin pwned again
On Pandasthumb, Nick Matzke, whose contributions to Dover v Kitzmiller were instrumental in the stunning defeat of Intelligent Design and whose contributions to exposing the fallacies in Behe''s arguments as well as the extent of ignorance of science amongst ID proponents has caused much concern amongst ID proponents, so much that in general they have chosen to pretend, in a typical creationist fashion, that Matzke's arguments do not exist. In this example, Matzke shows how Luskin's attempts to rebut the Kitzmiller decision by exposing the scientific vacuity of ID, once again backfire in light of the current state of scientific knowledge.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/09/luskin-and-the-2.html
Nick Matzke:
Over on the opposingviews.com website, Casey Luskin of the DI tries to rebut the Kitzmiller decision by re-fighting Behe’s spectacular implosion on the issue of the evolution of the vertebrate immune system. To review, in his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box, Behe claimed that:
--Behe
“As scientists we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustruation.” (Darwin’s Black Box, p. 139)
“We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.” (Darwin’s Black Box, p. 138)
--
(PvM: Note how these are the typical ID arguments against science, we do not know, thus designed)
As the debate over “irreducible complexity” developed in the next decade, the most detailed arguments would go basically like this:
--
ID: Gradual evolution by natural selection can’t produce IC structures because any structure missing a part would be nonfunctional
Evo: You are ignoring cooption of structures with different functions, which has a been a major feature of the evolutionary explanation of complex structures ever since the Origin of Species.
ID: Cooption explanations are too improbable.
Evo: Why?
ID: Because we say so.
Evo: But homology evidence shows that “IC systems” lacking parts can still have other functions, and therefore your claim that structures missing parts would be nonfunctional is wrong
ID: OK well I don’t have a comeback on that point, so instead I will claim that evolutionary cooption explanations aren’t detailed & tested enough to satisfy me.
Evo: Here’s a bunch of detailed & tested research papers on the evolution of system X.
ID: Not detailed enough. I need every single mutation & selection pressure before I admit that evolution produced this IC system rather than ID.
--
At this point the ID proponent has abandoned the original argument and therefore lost, even though he won’t admit it. Knowing all of this before the Kitzmiller trial, we devised ways to bring this point to the attention of the judge. The most famous example was the fabled “immune system cross”. A large amount of evidence was submitted that showed how the key feature of the vertebrate adaptive immune system, rearranging immune receptors (antibodies), evolved.
Read the rest at http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/09/luskin-and-the-2.html and educate yourself on the current status of science regarding the immune system and its evolution, and compare it with how ID 'explains' said immune system ('poof').
- PvM
September 19, 2008 9:19AM
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.
actually..
I read the entire article.. and of course not being a member of the various fields of genetic research - it was not simple reading, nor did I understand even half of the references they made to various receptors and such. That considered... it appears to not actually prove the point and also does not answer Behe's original question.
also the comments show mixed reactions - and many of the readers reacted as I did... the original question was disregarded.
First and foremost - how does an animal without an immune system survive to acquire one. You would need to live to do so.... a dead animal does not good genetics make.
This is what Behe asked... instead what we have is a list of genetic comparisons of immune systems.. showing some as simple and some as complex... well, duh. This is the same technique as lining up skeletons and saying 'see.... a progression!'....
or not a progression - depending on whether you want to commit to a crime of assumption.
and besides... the article is about an ID trial... and Behe was presented with this pile of information... how could the judge (who is a judge by trade.. not a geneticist) decide whether or not these technical papers had proven anything?
in the articles words ''Judge Jones ruled that “Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe’s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex.''
how would the judge know that... ? He could have handed the judge a pile of recipes for sponge cake and called it a refutation.
- lux113
July 21, 2009 6:13AM
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.
evolving
"First and foremost - how does an animal without an immune system survive to acquire one. "
It does not acquire one... it already has one from it's ancestors.
Evolution does not 'recreate' everything from scratch, it builds on previously evolved systems. As such when an animal 'evolved' the immune system of it's ancestor evolve with it. Evolution is not a one mutation at a time deal, it involves multiple mutations happening throughout the life form.
- MrBook
July 21, 2009 6:56AM
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.
inherit the unknown
..... I'm talking about the EVOLUTION of the first immune system. You can't inherit what doesn't exist..
- lux113
July 21, 2009 9:03AM
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.
Developed
“... I'm talking about the EVOLUTION of the first immune system. You can't inherit what doesn't exist..”
True.
However for multi cellular life to survive and reproduce it would have to have a way to keep other life from interfering in it’s processes. As such the only multi-cellular life that would endure would be those that had mutations protecting them from other life forms. That would be the beginning of the immune system.
- MrBook
July 21, 2009 5:39PM
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.
that only goes around the problem..
I think this comes down to an irreducible complexity argument... how many mutations would be necessary to build this simple defense mechanism.. they would all need to happen simultaneously (or as a stretch.. nearly simultaneously) to be effective.. and thus superior by natural selection.
- lux113
July 22, 2009 4:37AM
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.
oneupmanship
“I think this comes down to an irreducible complexity argument...”
So far Irreducible Complexity has failed ever time it was tested. It’s validity as a Scientific theory has never been demonstrated.
“how many mutations would be necessary to build this simple defense mechanism.. they would all need to happen simultaneously (or as a stretch.. nearly simultaneously) to be effective.. and thus superior by natural selection.”
To reach modern levels quite a few mutations, however they built slowly over the past few million years. The immune system did not have to arise simultaneously after all… evolution is a game of oneupmanship.
One species develops defenses against a form of attach and goes on to prosper, while another species develops a new mechanism of attack that bypasses those defenses. All this happens in a constantly changing environment where multiple pressures exist.
Also, once a defense against one kind of attack has bee developed it is much easier to develop new defenses against a similar form of attack (once a species has developed a defense against one type of virus it is easier to develop defenses to similar types of viruses).
- MrBook
July 22, 2009 4:46PM
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.
Keep Religion Out Of Science!
As much as I might believe that there is some sort of creator and that a creation occurred, you cannot justifiably intermingle science and religion. ID is just "creation science" (which is not science at all) in disguise!
Teach science, not religion, in the science classroom, and creationism/ID in church. Bottom line, end of story.
- bagpiper2005
September 20, 2008 2:21AM
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.
ID has no merit except as a religious idea.
ID has no merit except as a religious idea. For ID to be even minimally logical, the IDer must be God. Positing any other possible Designer is illogical because the question can be fairly asked: where did they come from? If they are naturally occuring, then we can be too. If they are not, then ID just posits God at some degree of separation.
ID is, in fact, just a version of creationism. Actually, ID is one of the oldest forms of scientific creationism; a version of it was proposed by William Paley around 1802; about seven (7) years BEFORE CHARLES DARWIN WAS BORN. The modern version of ID is differnt from Paley's watchmaker, but only because 206 years have passed. At least Paley was honest enough to not obscure the religious nature of his idea.
- sean s
September 23, 2008 3:17PM
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.
Unintelligent designers
A common trait I've noticed in every debunker of Intelligent Design, Creationism, God, etc. is an ardent desire to believe there is no higher reasoning power than the human mind. Which means he thinks HIS mind is the smartest thing in the Universe. His mind is closed on that certainty and he derives smug pleasure from sneering at those who don't agree with him.
A good word for that attitude is "fanaticism."
A religious fanatic says: "I know I'm right because God told me so." A secular fanatic says: "I know I'm right because I am God in my own little Cosmos."
Such self-worshipers are insufferable bores who could be ignored if they didn't use government power to force their beliefs on others. By lying about "separation of church and state" and other nonsense, they urge judges to pass laws against teaching anything but their own views of science in public schools. That such actions are the exact opposite of tolerance of dissent and objective scientific inquiry doesn't bother their snobbish feelings of superiority.
It is, of course, futile to argue with closed minds. So I'll just try to retain my own skepticism and study all sides of a controversy.
- Allogic
September 29, 2008 9:22PM
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.
Turning reality upside down
What I desire to beleive is totally irrelevant. If desire guided my beliefs, I would be not only a supporter of Intelligent Design, but a young Earth Creationist and a fundamentalist Christian. But I'm not because my eyes were opened to the falsehood of those positions and that realization plunged me into a deep sense of grief at having been lied to and manipulated by promoters of bigoted dogmas. I think is it absolutly shameful for anyone to imply that my position is fanatical because I WANT to be the supreme intelligence in my universe. That is such a blatantly dishonest and ignorant strawman that I am amazed that it was even put out here.
In short, not one word of Allogic's statement rings true to me.
- Dale Husband
October 10, 2008 12:11AM
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.
amen to that..
very well said. The arrogance factor is always obvious. The entire act of presuming you know anything for sure is not scientific... Their bias reveals them - and admittedly that happens on both sides. I don't believe a true 'scientist' exists... because no matter who you are, you are inevitably proving nothing but your world view.
- lux113
July 21, 2009 6:19AM
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.
argh.
that reply was to allogic... I clearly should have clarified.
- lux113
July 21, 2009 6:20AM
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.
and to Dale Husband
And I was just the reverse... I believed in nothing for 25 years.. and now I believe wholeheartedly in God.
You should never judge a religion by it's followers for one -- people are sinful, perverse, bigoted beings and are not the ruler to go by. No matter what denomination. Though I do think I find much more animosity spouted by the atheist... and for balance I do usually find more ignorance from christians...not all - just on the average. Yet, that is my point - you should never use them as a guide to what is true.
- lux113
July 21, 2009 6:26AM
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.
animosity?
"I find much more animosity spouted by the atheist... "
The animosity is much higher on the religious side... the people who consider atheists immoral and even criminal.
- MrBook
July 21, 2009 7:05AM
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.
only two choices
There are only two choices. Either the complexity of living systems is intelligently organized or complex biological organization is the result of a series of lucky accidents. Darwinism claims “natural selection” somehow turned all those lucky accidents into purposefully interacting systems. Exactly how such a feat is performed is not stated. ID claims the complexity of living systems is not accidental. Whether the organizing intelligence of living systems is an innate aspect of living matter, or whether it emanates from some deity can not be determined. The present argument between theists and evangelical atheists can never be resolved. However if intelligence of any form is involved in living systems, either an internal organizing force or direction from a deity -- life is intelligently designed.
- bertvan
October 9, 2008 11:20AM
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.
The irony of our time
Just as advances in genetic and protein research and mathematics are enabling us to understand and explain how evolution works, a growing number of our society are rejecting science in favor of myth and fake science.
Is it that people are losing touch with science because of its complexity; our education system is letting us down; the quality of our news sources is deteriorating; or informative (and could have been enlightening) books like “A New Kind of Science” are so poorly written?
- RichNau
October 16, 2008 1:35PM
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.
Faith Abounds
I really have to give the anti-IDer's credit, you have a lot of faith. More than I do actually. Some say that God does not exist and that there is no way in this universe that he created everything, yet what doesn't make sense to me is that there is less of a chance that The Big Bang happened then God actually creating the universe. Do the math: The Big Bang is really impossible. I heard a statistic that said the possibility of The Big Bang happening is like a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling A WORKING BOEING 747.
Look around you. Look away from your computer screen for a moment and glance out your window. Really ask yourself, "Did all this happen by chance?" The trees, water, mountains, birds, cats, dogs; I'm not sure how people can believe that this was all a freak accident. Was it really a concidence that the planet we call Earth just happened to be the IDEAL place for life? Any closer to the sun, we'd fry. Any farther, we'd freeze. We're perfectly placed in the universe and thrive because of it. Coincidence? I think not.
Most of all, look at yourself. Ask any doctor and they will tell you that the human body is a remarkable machine. Well lubricated, efficient, intelligent; what are the chances of the body that you are in now coming from a pile of goo struck by lightning (or however you believe we came to existance). For those of you who believe that we were not created and came into existance randomly, I give you props for believing in something that mathmatically probably never happened.
Also, if there is no God, then we have no purpose; we are useless beings that try to make the most of of what we have been dealt. Is that what you want to believe? If you do, then you have more faith than most people.
I've found purpose. I've found happiness. Have you?
- filmfreak
October 28, 2008 7:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
True
While in science you cannot prove or falsify the existence of God (and ID doesn't change that), I agree that when it comes to blind faith Dawkins and PZ Myers are guilty of the same thing.
I considered atheism for a while after having a growing distaste for what seemed to be an elitist mentality among Christians, but then I realized that this new atheist movement is basically guilty of the same thing.
My mind was made up when I a couple people on youtube posted videos saying atheism offered nothing, and after viewing some of the attempts to prove atheism DID have something to offer, I realized that even if religion WAS false, it at least serves as a catalyst for a happier life.
- F2XL
November 2, 2008 1:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Theism and atheism
Theism is a belief in god/s. Atheism is a *lack* of belief in god/s. Atheists do not claim to have proof that there is no God, but rather are confident to work on the assumption that none exists. The person who makes an outlandish claim has to provide the proof; it doesn't work the other way around. Saying, "I'm waiting for evidence that God exists, and if that happens I'll reconsider my position, but until then I won't believe" -- that's atheism, and there's no faith involved there.
- thoughtcounts Z
November 3, 2008 8:36AM
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.
My Bad
Forgot that atheism ISN'T a religion, and if I say otherwise, people will apologetically insist I'm wrong.
- F2XL
November 9, 2008 11:21AM
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.
Atheism offers nothing
Atheism is merely the lack of theistic belief, and it offers nothing beyond that. It exists as a social movement only because arrogant and self-righteous theism is so rampant in this country. If most everyone accepted the lack of religion as readily as they accepted red hair or tattoos, atheism as a movement would cease to exist.
If you're looking for a catalyst for a happier life, you'd need to look elsewhere. There are atheistic philosophies that can fill such a gap. Secular humanism is my favorite, but there are atheistic spiritual traditions, including subsets of Taoism and Confucianism.
- Antimatter
December 26, 2008 10:21AM
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.
Science is not atheism.
First of all, science does not make a claim that every feature of the universe can be explained without God.
Instead, it makes a host of positive claims that a particular feature of the universe can be explained by some particular mechanism.
So, belief in the efficacy and scope of evolution does not equate to a belief in a universe with no metaphysical purpose, or a universe with no creator.
Furthermore, you conflate cosmology with biology. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the origin of the universe. The theory of evolution only explains why living beings posses complex structures which aid in the propagation of life.
Finally: "Did all this happen by chance?"
Scientists do not believe that life is the result of "chance." Instead, we believe that life the result of the uniform operation of natural laws.
During pregnancy a new organism is formed entirely by the operation of natural laws. This is not the result of chance, and does not make life purposeless.
- Matthew Ackerman November 3, 2008 7:03AM
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.
Cosmology or Biology...doesn't matter
You're right, science is not atheism, but not that's what most people make it out to be. They take God totally out of the equation and most deny that He even exists. Some are even more open to the fact that aliens created us, which takes a lot of faith to believe.
I am not just addressing cosmology or biology, I'm addressing the whole concept that God was not involved in creating the universe. Whether your talking about either one of those particular topics is irrelevant, the real issue is that some people (maybe not yourself) make God absent in creating the universe, you, me, my dog, that that tree outside, and so on. I do appreciate that you state that "science is not atheism" and there are reason's the universe functions as it does (cosmology or biology), but what other explanation is there to...life...or the universe? Do you have a hypothesis on how we came to be? I would love to hear it.
I think you missed my point about the whole issue of "chance". When I said that, I meant that some believe the universe (cosmology) spontaniously came together by a giant expolsion, and later, just happened to create life as we know it (biology). "Chance" was just a point to illustrate the randomness of our whole universe and ourselves coming together. I still fail to grasp the amount of faith it takes to believe this.
Yes, a baby being formed is natural, but the fact that we as humans are able to reproduce is a miracle all in itself; just look at all the things that it takes to make it all happen. I just can't understand how some people can think this all came together by "chance". The belief in something other than intelligent design takes much more faith than what I believe.
You also missed the point about purpose. As a Christian, I know that the God who created me has a one-of-a-kind plan for my life. If God didn't create us (which is highly, highly unlikely) and there is no plan for each of us, then what's the point of living? If I'm here just to live and die, no wonder the suicide rate is as high as it is!
I'll say it again: I've found purpose. I've found happiness. HAVE YOU?
- filmfreak
November 3, 2008 5:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Why should there be a god at all?
Your argument is compelling until we expand the question of "How did we get here?" to encompass the divine. I understand the Christian god had no beginning. I'm not asking, "Who created god?" but rather, "Why should there be a god at all?" What are the mathematical odds that your god would be the way he is? In light of that question, suddenly the big bang doesn't seem like such an outlandish problem in comparison.
We know the big bang happened, for whatever reason. The existence of a divine creator (conveniently) makes no difference in the observable predictions of the big bang, so why does it require faith to eliminate the assumption of a god?
I've found purpose and happiness too. Meaning doesn't need to be handed down from above; it comes from within too. That isn't faith; it's the courage to face reality.
- Antimatter
December 26, 2008 10:06AM
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.
yet..
With belief.. facing reality doesn't require 'courage'... but facing a world with no purpose behind it.. with no reason except cause and effect, electrons and neutrons, yes - that world requires courage for sure.
Keep in mind that I did not find God out of some need to have an explanation..though I admit even as an atheist the concept sounded 'nice'. Nor was it a need to have this innate courage that comes from a world with reason, it was instead just a bonus. It's a typical atheistic viewpoint that because the believer lacked the courage to live in a world without some form of security blanket.. that they invent God..on the contrary I came to the conclusion from looking at the evidence and from personal experiences. The realization was unavoidable.
I was a happy person as an atheist.. -- though I can't describe the happiness that comes from knowing this isn't just a cosmic accident.
As far as you question of 'what are the odds your God would be the way he is?'... I truly don't get the question... I'd say 1:1... but that would mean I knew what that meant in the first place? It's awfully esoteric... Do you mean what are the odds.. that if there were a God that he would want to have a creation? I'd figure 1:1... though it's rather hard for an imperfect being to imagine the wants of God - but it would seem any God by necessity would 'do' something.... not simply be content as an all encompassing complete and perfect whole... it would most likely 'create' in some form.. and what are the chances that this creation would likely be a reflection of himself in some form.. I'd say 1:1... when you create your creation reflects your character... does it not? Now the next step becomes more conjectural... if you were to create this 'creation' would it be proper to force upon it absolute obedience? I'd say that wouldn't be right.. I'd say you'd have to give it a right to dissent... matter of fact I'd give it a 1:1 chance that the only path would be free will.. and thus an imperfect creation - since you cannot have the option to do wrong without it.. so free will is another 1:1 chance.. Now we have a creation.. and it's flawed and yet shows similarities to it's creator.. we need to give this creation some purpose.. some form of reason to exist of sorts.. well I figure the obvious choice would be that the very purpose the creator would devise is a great mystery of 'where did I come from?' .. in other words.. a beautiful mystery would be 'am I an accident.. or did I come from a creator?'... now THAT would be an ingenious idea... it would be like a game of hide and seek with my creation... It would be the ultimate question and the ultimate purpose... yes, I would give a 1:1 chance that this would be the perfect concept for my creation's 'fulfilling purpose'.. Now another problem... considering I am a perfect creator.. but have made an imperfect being... doomed to mistakes - and suffering.. and now he has a reason for life.. the search for the truth of me.. the creator.. I need to instill a reason for this search...a reward of sorts - since simply knowing I exist is not going to really provide meaning or even reason to search... I have it! the ultimate reward.. to return to me.. their perfect creator - ahhh... but there's a problem.. any reward means a punishment.. and that doesn't sound very benevolent of a perfect creator....hmm.. well then I will come to earth and live as them - in earthly form - yes! perfect idea... and even allow myself to die at their hands to show that I have suffered as they have! .. and I will make the rule that due to my own sacrifice... all that is necessary to return to me - the perfect creator is simply a heartfelt belief.. and an apology!! ingenious .. and perfectly simple!...
in conclusion... I'd say if there were a God... which there is... there's a 1:1 chance he would be precisely as we perceive him.
- lux113
July 21, 2009 7:17AM
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.
On the science
My other comment focused more on my atheist background, but I wanted to respond to your scientific misconceptions.
Nobody thinks lightning struck goo and humans popped out. Saying such constitutes a straw man and betrays your unfamiliarity with evolutionary theory. Before bashing what you've heard evolutionists "believe," you should check for yourself. There are several excellent books, some by Christians, that introduce the basic concepts behind the modern formulation of Darwin's theory (Darwin was wrong on most of the details) and explain why we accept them. I would personally suggest any of the books by Kenneth Miller.
http://www.amazon.com/s/?url=search-alias %3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=kenneth+miller
- Antimatter
December 26, 2008 11:33AM
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.
ID Contradicts Itself
The name Intelligent Design is itself a hoax. It's meant to sound scientific to obscure the belief that the universe was created by a bodiless consciousness.
Further, to argue that the universe was created by some consciousness outside of the universe avoids the untidy question: Where would that consciousness be? If nowhere, then it can't have existed to begin with. If somewhere, then existence was already there before the bodiless consciousness came on the scene. Hence it could not have created existence.
Intelligent Design has no merit because it rests on the very concepts it denies. For instance, it rests on the view that an "intelligence" created the universe---yet states that that thing is unknowable. If it's unknowable, then no one can declare it's intelligent---or that it exists.
It's odd to attribute an orgin to the universe outside itself simply because it's complex. Given the naure of the universe, were it not complex, THAT would require an explanation.
- Sylvia Bokor
November 17, 2008 11:13AM
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.
You Contradict Yourself
"The name Intelligent Design is itself a hoax. It's meant to sound scientific to obscure the belief that the universe was created by a bodiless consciousness."
So are your main criticisms of ID just superficial ones?
"Further, to argue that the universe was created by some consciousness outside of the universe..."
Who said anything about a supernatural entity?
"...avoids the untidy question: Where would that consciousness be?"
This question can easily remain unanswered if all we are trying to do is determine if certain features of the universe and in living systems are designed or not; we need not know what the location of a painter is for a cave painting to know that such a painter existed by inferring from the painting itself.
"If nowhere, then it can't have existed to begin with."
See the above point, a design inference can be made independently from knowledge of a designing force's location.
"If somewhere, then existence was already there before the bodiless consciousness came on the scene. Hence it could not have created existence."
Where in the entire doctrine of ID do they state that "existence" is what the designer(s)/designing force created? In what book or article does a DI fellow state that there was know existence until a designer of some sort created it? Or are you just building a straw man?
"Intelligent Design has no merit because it rests on the very concepts it denies."
And this merit rests on what concept in denial?
"For instance, it rests on the view that an "intelligence" created the universe---yet states that that thing is unknowable. If it's unknowable, then no one can declare it's intelligent---or that it exists."
See the above point. We need not "know" the intelligence to draw inferences about it's existence because that's not what ID studies. ID studies the FEATURES that are best traced to an intelligence; not the intelligence itself.
"It's odd to attribute an orgin to the universe outside itself simply because it's complex. Given the naure of the universe, were it not complex, THAT would require an explanation."
How so? And of course the origins of the Universe (even if it was from unintelligent causes) would be from outside itself, something would've had to have caused the big bang from the point of singularity.
- F2XL
November 18, 2008 4:41PM
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.
Fallacies Aren't Arguments
The response to my comment ID Contradicts Itself is a series of peculiarly unclear assertions. For example, the responder declares: --- "We need not "know" the intelligence to draw inferences about it's existence because that's not what ID studies. ID studies the FEATURES that are best traced to an intelligence; not the intelligence itself."---
Such an assertion presupposes that (1) the "features" exists separate from the entity, and that (2) the features are expressions of some intelligence one supposes exists. This is a logical fallacy. It assumes the prior existence of a thing whose features one is allegedly studying while declaring one is "tracing" them to some intelligence, which one denies one knows.
The responder is dealing in word salads, i.e., formulating arguments that float without reference to reality. This approach permeates the responder's entire post. As such, it's not worth rebutting.
- Sylvia Bokor
November 19, 2008 7:14AM
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 agree
"The response to my comment ID Contradicts Itself is a series of peculiarly unclear assertions. For example, the responder declares: --- "We need not "know" the intelligence to draw inferences about it's existence because that's not what ID studies. ID studies the FEATURES that are best traced to an intelligence; not the intelligence itself."---"
Is the fact that we don't need to know the exact source of a design to know such a source exists just an unclear assertion? If so, explain. Oh wait.....
"Such an assertion presupposes that (1) the "features" exists separate from the entity, and that (2) the features are expressions of some intelligence one supposes exists."
1. What do you mean by "separate?" 2. Agree, that's the whole point about design vs. the designer itself.
"This is a logical fallacy. It assumes the prior existence of a thing whose features one is allegedly studying while declaring one is "tracing" them to some intelligence, which one denies one knows."
How is it a logical fallacy to say that we don't need to know in person the author of a book to know that the book had an author? And what do you mean by the "prior existence" of a feature? Are you claiming that I'm bent on the assuming that the designed feature existed before the designer? Elaborate please.
"The responder is dealing in word salads, i.e., formulating arguments that float without reference to reality. This approach permeates the responder's entire post."
How on earth is the fact that we need not know the designer to identify design an argument that floats without reference to reality?
"As such, it's not worth rebutting."
Yet you felt compelled to do so.
- F2XL
November 19, 2008 10:36AM
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.
That's the wrong question
I do not believe in Jesus, nor I am a Christian. However organs like the snake venomous fangs, the wing, the eye and the flagelum are simply not possible to explain by natural selection, because all these need all their components to function properly. The true question to be asked is how these organs came about piece by piece, cell by cell until they were thoroughly operative?
The bizantine debate whether ID is or not science is to bark at the wrong tree. What about if Darwing was wrong and Monsieur Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck was right and there IS an inherent will that make species "intent" their organic changes? I have read scientific evidences that have recently sprung about living being's abilities to "intent" changes around them.
- Odlanierzenitram
February 4, 2009 5:52PM
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.
I want to believe not.
`Guided by a larger force`. I can't be sure of course, but I believe that that is not the case. If that is true then it seems that it will turn out to be a religious matter, because humans will automatically consider that force as god.
Even if some force created us, humans shouldn't take for granted that it did it so that we worship it. He might did it for fun or more likely just because that`s what is does. Why do ants make colonies on the ground and gather in big teams? Because that`s what they do, to survive. Maybe the force needs to create things to survive and if that is the case by now it will probably have forgotten about this place a long long time ago since it will be far far away creating other things.
- Joji
March 16, 2009 6:44AM
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.
YES
Just look around.
There is know bang that can do all.This is a no brainer!
- zman
May 29, 2009 9:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Intelligent Design is Another word for creationism
Intelligent Design is a dishonest way for creationism to try to appear scientific. It's kind of silly when you think about it. Denying nature, the creationists attempt to replace evolution with biblical nonsense. They pretend that some bodiless ghost is the cause of everything in the universe and conceal their beliefs behind a psuedo-scientific cloak of "intelligent design."
- Sylvia Bokor
June 3, 2009 12:34PM
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.
Why doesn't Intelligent Design claim everything Creationism claims?
If Intelligent Design is Creationism, why doesn't Intelligent Design claim everything Creationism claims?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq /#chptux
- Screen Name
July 11, 2009 3:25AM
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.
misleading by the very words used to describe it
I realize my comment doesn't relate to the heart of the question, but the use of phrases like " intelligent design ", "Abortion", " pro-choice ", "gay" and all the other politically correct synonyms are really beginning to irritate me. Why not call things what they are? Abortion is the word used to insinuate the aborting of a pregnancy . It is Murder. Pro Choice means you believe a mother has the right to murder her baby. Intelligent design means you believe in a creator, i.e. "God". "Gay" means you are Homosexual, not necessarily gay and happy about it. These words are used to lessen the impact of what is happening around us, to make things vaguer in an already shadowy world. Who would benefit from that? The Father of all Lies perhaps?
- chief45
September 1, 2009 7:59PM
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.
Yep
Satan is sure behind all of these things. That's what the guy cares about.
If you guys in the ID world want to come out and admit "Yes, this is religion ", it would save us all a lot of time.
Abortion = Murder. Sure, I suppose we could call it that. And antibiotics are genocidal.
Pro - Choice = Right to murder . Fine. And Pro-Life = Destruction of a rights-based society .
Intelligent Design = God. Okay. Evolution = ...Evolution. That one's not a euphemism.
Gay = Homosexual. Fine. Stop using the word straight, then. Heterosexuals aren't necessarily "straight" by any stretch of the imagination.
- quantummechanik
September 1, 2009 9:39PM
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.
Lard speaks?
I really wish you'd find someone else to stalk. Final response to your nonsense:
Yes Satan does encourage sin in our world.
If "you guys" in the atheist world would come out and admit that atheism is a religion , it'd save us some time too.
Abortion kills babies , antibiotics kill germs. They may be equal in your world, but not in mine.
You admit pro-choice is a right to murder . pro-life DOES take away your "so called right" to kill babies, but murdering babies is no more a right than murdering an 8 year old child. Do you believe in that "right" too?
You agree on Id= God...good
I agree heterosexuals are not "straight" either. That's just one I overlooked. Thanks for pointing it out.
- chief45
September 2, 2009 8:48AM
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.
You're calling me fat now?
That's classy.
Perhaps you don't understand the concept of this site. Someone makes an assertion, someone responds to it. There is a debate. This occurs everywhere, from the main arguments to the comments.
- quantummechanik
September 2, 2009 11:37AM
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.