Topic: Is Intelligent Design Science? (Read 21628 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #20 on:** October 09, 2005, 11:30:10 PM »

""We look at it. ""

"Bzzzt! Doesn't work. Biologists look at living organisms and see natural design. IDists look at them an see artificial design."

I'm speaking generally of design in general. We are immersed in design recognition from birth and do a pretty good job of it. For you to say that we are unable to distinguish between artificial design and 'natural design' is patently absurd. We do it every day, and we do it reliably.

"People like Behe and Dembski have tried, but they have failed miserably to convince other scientists."

So? Is this an argument from authority, now? You have no opinion of your own, rather, if 'other scientists' think the argument has 'failed miserably' you bow to their judgment? You can't have it both ways. You can't say that they have NOT provided such mechanisms for distinguishing between the two and then say that these have failed to persuade is duplicitous.

Its hard to hit a moving target. Why don't you hold still and answer this question directly:

Have they or have they not provided criteria to distinguish between 'artificial design' and 'natural design?' Your approval of them, or other scientists approval of them, is not relevant.

Seriously, its not a trivial issue. You aren't allowed to have both sides simultaneiously.

Back to the point: Its not enough to say "Scientists don't think so" in a forum like this. You need to actually demonstrate that the reasoning is rational.

"You seem to concede my point here. Since you admit that intuitions are not ALWAYS reliable, they cannot serve as evidence."

I never said that they can serve AS EVIDENCE. I am only pointing out that we can do effortlessly what you seem to think that we can't do scientifically. You don't need to be a scientist to detect design. In fact, to hear you talk, scientists are among the few people in the world unable to acheive this simple feat.

"I didn't say that there was NO way to distinguish natural and artificial design."

Then this concedes the argument. It is irrelevant as to whether or not you think that ID proponents have put forward reasonable criteria. The point of the thread is whether or not the endeavor can be considered scientific. Will you go further and say that there is NO way to scientifically distinguish between natural and artificial design?

I truly don't care what the state of balance is re: what scientists think. Its an argument from authority. I think for myself. You?

"I do not dismiss any core aspect of what it means to be human. Intelligent and artificial designs are distinguishable, but the distinction supports the theory of evolution, not IDism."

That remains to be seen. The point of this thread is whether or not ID can be considered science, not whether either it or evolution best explains the biological data. Its really a narrow point. I'll put it to you again, since you have now for the second time admitted that you can distinguish between 'artificial' and 'natural' design:

Can you scientifically distinguish between the two?

Again, it is not relevant whether or not you think the ID people have managed to succeed. The point is whether or not the thing can be done at all, in principle.

"It is helpful to give a few examples of what you mean by "intuition" that science relies on. Otherwise, I cannot comment on such a claim."

Are you serious?

"No, I would rely on the principle of functionality."

Then certainly we could apply such a principle and apply it also to biological systems, eh? One not need pell-mell into derogatory comments about people trying only to confirm their religious preferences, do we?

If you can do it, I can do it.

"Human designers "evolve" their designs when they improve on them."

Of course, human designers also create things from scratch from the imaging they do in their mind, and many of these things that you have evolving were at one time nothing at all. For example, somewhere along the line someone came up with the first 'carriage' which could be evolved in the first place. I think I can pretty well use your 'functionality' principle.

"Now consider biological evolution. The opposite is the case. There are all kinds of unnecessary, nonfunctional features--vestigial detritus--in biological organisms. Humans have appendixes, and males have nipples."

Frankly, this is a very unpersuasive argument. Given a billion years of evolution, for nonfunctional features to mean anything as evidence, we ought to be literally chock full of them. What can you list for me? 5? 10? Maybe 20? This is a 'naturalism of the gaps' argument in reverse- you are depending on our ignorance of a feature's function, when in fact we may very well discover functions that these 'vestiges' perform.

Ah, but there is the rub- even if we found uses for each of them, you'd chalk that up to the power of natural selection. In a nutshell, your 'nonfunctional features' is an unfalsifiable statement. Whether there are functional or nonfunctional features, you will view it as evidence of your view.

Even so, your concept here is not incompatible with ID. More ironically, it is not inconsistent in principle with creationism, either, and in fact creationism would predict such a thing. Of course, 'male nipples' is hardly compellng at all. *twirls fingers*

"Intelligent designers are far more efficient."

lol. Are they? Linux and Mac fans might snicker. Just one example.

Back to the point: Can you provide a scientific way to distinguish between these two to tell me which is designed? If not, can you tell me which is designed?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #21 on:** October 09, 2005, 11:33:55 PM »

I just want to note that I object to the category of 'natural design.' I'm running with it, but its really a contradiction in terms and an abuse of convention. We can talk about it later, but I wanted to go on the record.

Ragnar · « **Reply #22 on:** October 10, 2005, 03:24:50 AM »

After all, if you find a pottery shard in the earth that is several thousand years old, it is pretty unlikely that you'll know the identify of the creator of that shard, and that's ok, because that question is completely independant to the process of determining whether or not you have a pottery shard!

Unless it is now your contention that archeology is not science, either, because it is able to reliably distinguish artifacts from the natural background without being bound also to name the identity of those artifacts.

The identity of who created the artifacts is named - It is a humanoid. I think you are also shooting yourself in the foot with this argument, by realizing that there is a difference between the natural environment and artifacts. This implies that the natural environment was not created. If it was created, how would we tell the difference between it and artifacts?

The definition of an artifact is something that was created by a humanoid species, so the identity is known. Knowing the identity of the creator of an artifact is an integral part of determining that it IS an artifact in the first place.

"Now consider biological evolution. The opposite is the case. There are all kinds of unnecessary, nonfunctional features--vestigial detritus--in biological organisms. Humans have appendixes, and males have nipples."

Frankly, this is a very unpersuasive argument. Given a billion years of evolution, for nonfunctional features to mean anything as evidence, we ought to be literally chock full of them. What can you list for me? 5? 10? Maybe 20? This is a 'naturalism of the gaps' argument in reverse- you are depending on our ignorance of a feature's function, when in fact we may very well discover functions that these 'vestiges' perform.

At the least we can say they are not necessary for life. We can remove our appendixes and not suffer any ill consequences. In fact, before we were able to reliably remove infected appendixes, they could cause people to die. So not only is it a vestigial organ, it could actually be harmful. Why would a benevolent creator give his creations an organ that not only served no purpose, but could actually kill them?

And welcome back Cop! Good to see you

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #23 on:** October 10, 2005, 07:24:37 AM »

"The identity of who created the artifacts is named - It is a humanoid."

That's not 'identity.' That's a specific reference to the nature of the designer, not its identity. There is a difference between 'this shard came from Ragnar' and 'this shard came from a 'humanoid.'

However, the inference you are making is that its humanoid. If we were going to be thoroughly honest, we'd recognize that that is an assumption. A good one, perhaps, but an assumption. Nonetheless, we can tell if something is designed.

"This implies that the natural environment was not created. If it was created, how would we tell the difference between it and artifacts?"

The ONLY way that this has any substance is if you go back to my evolution and falsifiability thread and admit that if you are going to say evolution is unguided, in order for that assertion to be falsified, you'd have to be able to know guidance when you see it in order to falsify 'unguidance.' I do have an answer to this question, but its really not worth going into if 'unguidance' is held to be scientific, but its mutually exclusive opposite, 'guidance' is not.

"The definition of an artifact is something that was created by a humanoid species, so the identity is known."

Again, I'm using the word 'identity' in its much more precise sense. Which is to say, the sense that everyone uses it in most cases. My use should have been clear from the context.

You do NOT need to know the identity OR the nature of the designer in order to recognize that it was designed. See, once again, Crick's Directed Panspermia and Sagan's 'Contact.' And that's the point. Your objection is weak: "we can only detect design if we see something and tautologically expect that a human did it." or "If we can't attribute something to being humanoid, we can't detect design." I don't even know if I can really express your view here accurately. Its so weak. Of COURSE we can detect design, and it does not matter the name (identity) of the designer, or their race or species.

"At the least we can say they are not necessary for life"

My fingers are not necessary for life, either.

"Why would a benevolent creator give his creations an organ that not only served no purpose, but could actually kill them?"

You're kidding, right?

When a person goes in to get a heart transplant, its because his heart has become diseased or some deformation exists. If he doesn't have the heart replaced, it could actually kill him. Why would a benevolant creator give his creations an organ that could actually kill them if it ceased working? We should be ALL fingers!

But I want to point out the tricky sleight of hand you have done here. "benevolent creator" ? What is this? Where did this come from? When did we start arguing that the nature of the creator of human life was 'benevolent'? I can't recall making such a case. This is a clear example of someone importing implications into the argument rather than focusing on the actual observations. Either you can detect design in human physiology, or you can't. Working backwards from the expectation of a 'benevolent creator' is just you beginning with a particular IDENTITY and its ascribed characteristics to see if what is observed matches up (although, usually such a method consists only of rhetorical questions).

The sleight of hand goes further because here you are using 'identity' in the sense that I was using it- a specific reference to a specific entity, but with the shard you used a more general understanding of 'identity' so as to be speaking to the entire human race. To be fair, you should not be talking here about a specific creator (a benevolent one), but speaking to the whole class (supernatural beings) just like you did with humans.

That kind of honesty would let me again remind you that ID folks are perfectly content NOT referencing the identity (name or specific characteristics) OR its overall nature. Their focus is on whether the data shows design or not. That's it. Period.

cimics · « **Reply #24 on:** October 10, 2005, 07:24:58 AM »

Quote

No, I would rely on the principle of functionality. Human designers "evolve" their designs when they improve on them. For example, carriages became "horseless buggies" or automobiles. That evolution not only involved the addition of new functions (i.e. the steam and gasoline engines replacing beasts of burden) but the removal of nonfunctional features. Buggy whips and buggy-whip holders disappeared, because there was no longer a need for them. At one point, the ignition of engines became possible by means other than hand-cranking them. The cranks disappeared. Later on, automatic transmissions removed the need for shifting. Clutches disappeared. Why did all those disappearances happen? Because intelligent designers simplify their designs. They remove nonfunctional features.

What about those cigarette lighters?!

TheDoctor · « **Reply #25 on:** October 10, 2005, 09:48:16 AM »

Quote from: Copernicus

No, I would rely on the principle of functionality. Human designers "evolve" their designs when they improve on them. For example, carriages became "horseless buggies" or automobiles. That evolution not only involved the addition of new functions (i.e. the steam and gasoline engines replacing beasts of burden) but the removal of nonfunctional features. Buggy whips and buggy-whip holders disappeared, because there was no longer a need for them. At one point, the ignition of engines became possible by means other than hand-cranking them. The cranks disappeared. Later on, automatic transmissions removed the need for shifting. Clutches disappeared. Why did all those disappearances happen? Because intelligent designers simplify their designs. They remove nonfunctional features.

Hmm...first, clutches have hardly disappeared. In fact, they are quite common. That's why a manual transmission is also called a "standard" transmission. Second, an automatic transmission is hardly simpler than a manual one. Actually, it is much more complicated.

It would seem that intelligent designers actually add complexity to their designs. What about a computer from the late 1980s? Is it more or less complex than a computer from 2005? The answer, of course, is that it is less complex. Which is more complex, the Wright Flyer or a 747? The 747. All examples of intelligent designers increasing complexity.

cimics · « **Reply #26 on:** October 10, 2005, 10:34:09 AM »

Doc,

I'm not sure you got the point. Clutches have disappeared from automatic transmission cars. Standard transmission would be analogous to an earlier species. :) If I understand it correctly, his point is not simple vs. complex but simplify in terms of getting rid of vestigial stuff that's no longer necessary for the design.

Which leads back to that old cigarette lighter :)

Copernicus · « **Reply #27 on:** October 10, 2005, 11:54:45 AM »

Quote from: cimics

Which leads back to that old cigarette lighter :)

There is reason for cigarette lighters not to disappear. People still smoke, and manufacturers still want to sell them cars (even though they are a dying breed of humans :)). Also, the outlet is used for other purposes--to charge electronic devices, e.g. But ashtrays remain in place, as well. (I use mine for spare coins, etc.) Biological evolution also repurposes structures in this way--they can morph into new organs.

However, with the new CD players in cars, we see that tape cassette players are no longer with us. Not even vestigial ones.

Ragnar · « **Reply #28 on:** October 10, 2005, 12:02:00 PM »

"The definition of an artifact is something that was created by a humanoid species, so the identity is known."

Again, I'm using the word 'identity' in its much more precise sense. Which is to say, the sense that everyone uses it in most cases. My use should have been clear from the context.

Now you must be kidding. It is only necessary to idetify the designer as humanoid. Not knowing that the designer's name was Og is completely irrelevant.

You do NOT need to know the identity OR the nature of the designer in order to recognize that it was designed. See, once again, Crick's Directed Panspermia and Sagan's 'Contact.'

I have no idea what a directed panspermia is (sounds like a porn movie), but in the case of Contact the designer is identified as being an extraterrestrial species. I'm perfectly okay with the idea that life on earth came from another planet. We have yet to find any evidence of this, but it is possible.

But I want to point out the tricky sleight of hand you have done here. "benevolent creator" ? What is this? Where did this come from? When did we start arguing that the nature of the creator of human life was 'benevolent'? I can't recall making such a case. This is a clear example of someone importing implications into the argument rather than focusing on the actual observations. Either you can detect design in human physiology, or you can't. Working backwards from the expectation of a 'benevolent creator' is just you beginning with a particular IDENTITY and its ascribed characteristics to see if what is observed matches up (although, usually such a method consists only of rhetorical questions).

I'm sorry, I thought this was a Christian Apologetics web site. I've always maintained that if any gods do exist, they have a sick sense of humor. If you are simply arguing for the existence of a featureless deity, and not the Christian God, fine, we can play that game. There is still no evidence that human beings were designed purposefully.

Ragnar · « **Reply #29 on:** October 10, 2005, 12:07:48 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus

However, with the new CD players in cars, we see that tape cassette players are no longer with us. Not even vestigial ones.

I have a cassette player in my car. I don't like the idea of taking my 15 dollar CDs out of my house. It costs about 99 cents for a blank tape, so I make mixes for my car. I don't care if the tapes get damaged, I can always dub more.

I agree with your argument, though. It's a good analogy.

cimics · « **Reply #30 on:** October 10, 2005, 12:16:15 PM »

Quote

There is reason for cigarette lighters not to disappear. People still smoke, and manufacturers still want to sell them cars (even though they are a dying breed of humans ). Also, the outlet is used for other purposes--to charge electronic devices, e.g. But ashtrays remain in place, as well. (I use mine for spare coins, etc.) Biological evolution also repurposes structures in this way--they can morph into new organs.

So repurposed structures can happen under design :)

Quote

have a cassette player in my car. I don't like the idea of taking my 15 dollar CDs out of my house. It costs about 99 cents for a blank tape, so I make mixes for my car. I don't care if the tapes get damaged, I can always dub more.

My car has a CD player. I just burn songs I like from my CDs onto CDRs. That way, I don't have to take my CDs out of the house, but I can still listen to all my favorite songs. And a CDR costs a lot less than a blank tape. :)

I also use the cigarette lighter for my mp3 cd player for long trips and listen to a CD with 5 hours of music on it. :)

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #31 on:** October 10, 2005, 12:32:30 PM »

"Now you must be kidding. It is only necessary to idetify the designer as humanoid. Not knowing that the designer's name was Og is completely irrelevant."

I agree. My point is that THAT is what I was talking about in referencing 'identity.' Which brings us back to the critical point- it is NOT necessary at all to identify the designer as humanoid. You can take the data as it is. Either it can be shown to be designed, or it can't. You don't have to know anything about the nature or classification of the designer.

"I have no idea what a directed panspermia is (sounds like a porn movie), but in the case of Contact the designer is identified as being an extraterrestrial species."

So? It was EVENTUALLY identified as being of extraterrestial origin, but initially it had to come to their attention in the first place. How did they do that if not by establishing some likely parameters of design in a radio signal and then specifically looking for them? Once again, the classification is irrelevant. You don't need to know jack about the classification of the designer in order to see design.

"I'm perfectly okay with the idea that life on earth came from another planet. We have yet to find any evidence of this, but it is possible."

You're missing the point. How would we know this? How did Crick deduce this? To listen to you, we would not be able to know if we had evidence that life came from somewhere else until we actually KNEW where it came from. That's absurd.

"If you are simply arguing for the existence of a featureless deity, and not the Christian God, fine, we can play that game."

This is just another case of you assuming too much. You think that because I'm a Christian I can't approach the subject of ID abstractly or without reference to religion- the same assumption that Copernicus made in saying I was trying to justify my religious philosophy. By now, you should know that I say what I mean and I mean what I say. There is nothing in this thread arguing for any specific entity so don't infer one. You guys are the ones going there. That tells me that YOU can't approach the subject objectively.

Nowhere did I say that I was arguing for the existence of ANY deity in this thread. SO, you haven't even got that game right.

So far, Broken, Copernicus, and you, have all invoked supernatural entities as being a critical element of ID. That tells me that the ones with the agenda is ya'll. Beginning in the very first post, I said repeatedly, and demonstrated from Broken's own link (which he tried to pawn off saying the opposite of what it said), ID people are perfectly content trying ONLY to detect DESIGN. Whether its supernatural, space alien, human, or animal, is irrelevant from this POV.

"There is still no evidence that human beings were designed purposefully."

Says you. The point of this thread is whether or not an inquiry into the subject would be considered scientific or not, not whether there is any evidence or not.

Ragnar · « **Reply #32 on:** October 10, 2005, 12:53:24 PM »

So far, Broken, Copernicus, and you, have all invoked supernatural entities as being a critical element of ID. That tells me that the ones with the agenda is ya'll. Beginning in the very first post, I said repeatedly, and demonstrated from Broken's own link (which he tried to pawn off saying the opposite of what it said), ID people are perfectly content trying ONLY to detect DESIGN. Whether its supernatural, space alien, human, or animal, is irrelevant from this POV.

See, this is flat out baloney, though. The people trying to get ID taught in the schools are the Christian Right. To pretend there is no agenda to bring God into science classrooms is an outright lie. ID is just a label to make Creationism sound more scientific. Otherwise, what's the point? Why argue so strenulously for design if it doesn't matter who or what the designer is?

Copernicus · « **Reply #33 on:** October 10, 2005, 01:19:47 PM »

Quote from: Ragnar

See, this is flat out baloney, though. The people trying to get ID taught in the schools are the Christian Right. To pretend there is no agenda to bring God into science classrooms is an outright lie. ID is just a label to make Creationism sound more scientific. Otherwise, what's the point? Why argue so strenulously for design if it doesn't matter who or what the designer is?

There is a reason why they have to pretend that this is not a religious argument, Ragnar. Creationists lost their court battles to get creationism taught in science classes. They know they'll lose again if they admit a religious theme. Hence, all that tap dancing.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #34 on:** October 10, 2005, 03:19:41 PM »

"See, this is flat out baloney, though. The people trying to get ID taught in the schools are the Christian Right."

Forgive me, but I see nothing about that in this thread.

"To pretend there is no agenda to bring God into science classrooms is an outright lie."

Fine. This is a new thread starting, but if you get to argue that way, then I can say that evolution is an agenda to take God out of the science classrooms. Its just the flip side of the same coin. If you get to make one charge, I get to make the converse.

"Why argue so strenulously for design if it doesn't matter who or what the designer is?"

Like I said, I didn't bring any of that crap up, its you three. Apparently you see it as a threat. I can only tell you what my interest is, and that is that I think evolution is an intellectual bankrupt 'scientific' theory derived from the philosophical pre-supposition that life MUST be explained by naturalistic processes only. I'm more of an anti-evolutionist than I am a creationist or ID advocate. I've only recently been exploring ID, but my studies of evolution go back a good 10 years, and I rejected it on its own terms even while I did NOT believe in God.

That's right, foo dawg. I was an atheist when I rejected evolution. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

(I think that is something being smoked)

From Copernicus:

"There is a reason why they have to pretend that this is not a religious argument, Ragnar."

Its only a religious argument because you make it one.

"Creationists lost their court battles to get creationism taught in science classes. They know they'll lose again if they admit a religious theme. Hence, all that tap dancing."

That's the sort of thing that will get you heaped with contempt. About thirty years ago patronizing arrogant jerks that passed themselves off as scientists told the creationists to go back and find a way to present their idea's scientifically. Some- but not all, definately not all- joined the intelligent design theorists. Now, according to this hypothesis of yours, these creationists did exactly what the snobs told them to do, and its still not acceptable.

All that tells us is that evolutionists are snobs and double minded, and we shouldn't pay them any attention at all. They can't be pleased no matter what you do, so why bother pleasing them at all?

However, since you both obviously want to take God out of society and that's why you want evolution taught, you've made it into a religous issue, and I suppose we have to discuss it there.

Or- and this would be the reasonable thing to do, so naturally I'm not counting on this- we could discuss the issue on its merits without snobby, whiny accusations of religious motivations. Failure to do so only speaks to your character. And if I might say, it doesn't say very good things.

So, shall we discuss the merits of the thing, or are we going to descend into elitist attacks on each other's motivations? You both know very well that if you want to take the mud route, I'm more than happy to meet you there. I'm not above it, but in so descending, I will know that the real issue is being skirted.

Ragnar · « **Reply #35 on:** October 10, 2005, 05:12:13 PM »

How can you be an atheist and reject evolution at the same time? What is another explanation for how life developed? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm genuinely curious about this. I kind of had the opposite happen to me. I accepted evolution as a valid theory long before I started questioning my beliefs. I never really took the Bible as literal, despite what my church said. It was the realization that my personal beliefs and what I thought made sense scientifically contradicted with the Bible and what my Church taught to such a degree that I started questioning the very existence of God. Evolution was really a very small part of that.

Sorry, got off track a little there. My question stands, though. If you have no religious agenda in this debate, why start two threads attacking evolution? What's the point? If someone said, okay, it's a possibility that humans were designed, then would you honestly not start another thread trying to get to the next point of the Christian God as designer? I just think everyone should be up front about their motivations.

I also wanted to point out that you seem to accept the fact that species evolve within themselves, based on your responses to my spider story. You just can't make the leap to see that's a possibility across different species. I think you accept evolution, you just think there had to be someone there at the beginning who created all the different species. Is that correct?

For my own part, I don't think anyone can be totally sure how life began on this planet. I do not accept the Christian God as a valid theory because there are too many other contradictions within that concept, but design in itself - sure, it's a possibility, for the creation of life. But evolution is still the best theory for how life developed after creation. And that still leaves the question of who created the creators, which brings us back to the same old argument - the universe started on its own vs. it was created. And there is no way we can determine that definitively at this time.

cimics · « **Reply #36 on:** October 10, 2005, 06:16:06 PM »

Quote

How can you be an atheist and reject evolution at the same time?

Darn good question. I suppose you could be a Raelian

Broken · « **Reply #37 on:** October 10, 2005, 06:47:11 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"How can the key conclusion of Intelligent Design, ie., the existence of said Designer, be irrelevant? We do not observe such a Designer."

It's irrelvant because its irrelevant. We don't NEED to observe such a designer. This is an inference, much as you observing natural selection allows you to infer that this process accounts for every biological organism known to exist.

Science concerns what is observable. If you want to hypothesize an intelligent designer as a starting point, that is fine, but it remains an hypothesis until testible, falsifiable results can be predicted from this hypothesis. As it is today, intelligent design is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Quote

If you wish to dismiss ID as science on these grounds, you'll have to dismiss evolutionary theory, as well. Having now read almost all of that article you posted, this is the point Meyer makes as well.

Evolution is falsifiable. If it were not, Behe's critique would have no merit. Irreducible complexity is a valid test of evolution. However, Behe's "irreducibly complex" systems have less complex precursors- disproving his point.

Every fossil dug from the ground is a test for evolution. If a fossil chimpanzee were found in Cambrian strata, current evolution theory would be falsified.

Furthermore we can observe evolution in fast evolvers like viruses and bacteria. Domestic plants and animals have obviously evolved in response to a change in their environment (humans).

Furthermore, Darwin predicted that all life descended from the same pool of ancestors. The molecular evidence now proves him right.

All life is built from the same DNA, RNA, and amino acids (proteins). The same four DNA nucleotides, the same four RNA nucleotides, the same 20 amino acids. All proteins in all cells are manufactured in the same structures, ribosomes, which all decode RNA into proteins in the same way. All DNA, RNA, and amino acids have the same chirality (left-handed vs right-handed). These coincidences would only be possible if life had a common origin. It is amazing that Darwin could make this prediction without any knowledge of molecular biology.

So the axioms of evolution are easily observable and the predicted results are easily observable. Neither case holds for ID.

ID puts no restrictions whatsoever on the chronological order living things appear in the fossil record. Fish could have arisen at the same time as bacteria, trees the same time as algae, and humans the same time as sponges. Why is it, then, that the putative Designer produced life in a chronological order required by evolution?

Quote

You don't need to observe designers of life in order for ID to be scientific. All you have to do is constrain yourself to the observable data that you do have.

Really? What are the properties of this putative Designer? Is there any restriction whatsoever on what this Designer can do, or is He/She/It just a Wild Card?

Quote

It would be pedantic and petty, but you could say that the only scientific part of this process is the part where you are constrained by the observable data, and so therefore making the inference from that data to design is making a philosophical judgment, but that pulls the rug out from beneath you, as inferring from the observable data that natural selection is the right inference is also an inference, and so also a 'philosophical judgment.'

You are correct that ID is a philosophical argument. It is not a scientific one. A Designer is hypothesized, but the Designer has no properties other than "intelligence", whatever that means. Is this Designer more intelligent than us? Has this Designer always been present? What are the Designer's goals? Is the Designer natural or does He transcend the laws of nature? I have seen no answers to these questions in the ID literature.

Until ID identifies the properties of this Designer, there is nothing testable, nothing falsifiable, nothing useful. In short, there is no theory.

Quote

Common descent is an auxillary concept to evolution."

And an actual intelligent agent is an auxillary concept to intelligent design.

No. A Designer is the central conclusion, reached by postulating without evidence that evolution doesn't happen.

Quote

You don't need to know anything about the identify of the designer in order to infer designer. If this tortured logic were to go forward, we would have to throw out forensic science, anthropology, and archeology, to name a few. After all, if you find a pottery shard in the earth that is several thousand years old, it is pretty unlikely that you'll know the identify of the creator of that shard, and that's ok, because that question is completely independant to the process of determining whether or not you have a pottery shard!

SntJohnny, you are an intelligent man with a knowledge of logic. You do know that forensic science, anthropology,archeology, etc., are all concerned with human history. Contrary to your argument, we do indeed know the identity of this designer. We do not need to infer the existence of humans.

Quote

"This is a key flaw of ID. The designer can have any characteristics imaginable. There are no restrictions."

This again is completely false. If you'd read Meyer's piece in full, or even the next few sentences from the part you quoted, you would know that is the case. Furthermore, once again, your charge does actually apply also to evolution. If you are not allowing yourself to explore intelligent causes for things, you are saying that you have no restrictions in coming up with something from a naturalist point of view.

Then tell me the characteristics of this Designer, I am dying to know. You would be breaking new ground for ID. Meyer says,

Indeed, if design theorists are correct, design can not be inferred for every effect, even if intelligent design is a possible cause of all effects. Because intelligent agents, and presumably the Divine Agent, have causal powers that nature does not have, intelligent design may always be a possible explanation.

So, this Divine Agent is a possible explanation for anything. Although he does allow that the Divine Agent may not make every ripple on the ocean or every rock fall, the Divine Agent "may always be a possible explanation". So, the Divine Agent can explain everthing. No restrictions. No falsifiability. No scientific use whatsoever.

Contrary to your claim above, the action of evolution is limited by the three axioms I listed earlier. These are severe restrictions on both the history of life, the forms life now takes, and what forms it can take in the near future.

Quote

"The theory of evolution likewise places great restrictions on the dynamics of life. According to evolution,"

Actually, ID is compatible with all three of these:

Quote
1) All living things are descendents of other living things. An even greater restriction is common descent: all living things have a common pool of ancestors.

2) All living things are subject to selection by their environment: if they do not fit well in their environment, they do not reproduce. Only organisms which reproduce pass genetic information to future generations.

3) Living things may vary in small degree from their parents. We understand these variations to be due to changes in their genetic information. These changes are caused by mutations, sexual recombination, and viral infections, to name a few mechanisms.

So here you go and present information that is just as compatible with ID as it is 'evolution.' What did you gain? Nothing. ID acknowledges the same facts. ....

If ID acknowledges the same axioms and adds no new restrictions, then it can be safely removed with Occam's Razor. Just as Newton demands.

Quote

"Across many generations, the feedback between 2) and 3) causes the types of living things to change, especially in response to changes in their environment. This process works by trial and error. Each organism is a trial, and the errors do not reproduce."

Ah, but that is your inference. That is not your observation, and that is where if ID fails, so too does evolution.

I gave you examples of observable evolution above.

Quote

"From these simple yet highly restrictive axioms, evolution informs the entire structure of biology. All known biological data are consistent with these premises."

Actually, biology is informed cheifly by genetics. If it were not so, you would not have needed a neo-darwinian synthesis. At anyrate, your premises are not exclusively the domain of evolutionary theory, so they can't be considered as evidence for evolutionary theory.

Molecular Genetics strongly supports evolution. Proteins fall on a phylogenetic tree just as species do. Many of the structures of genomes are only understandable in terms of evolution. They do not support intelligent design, unless the Designer is a madman.

Sorry go to run. More later.

Copernicus · « **Reply #38 on:** October 10, 2005, 06:52:05 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"Creationists lost their court battles to get creationism taught in science classes. They know they'll lose again if they admit a religious theme. Hence, all that tap dancing."

That's the sort of thing that will get you heaped with contempt. About thirty years ago patronizing arrogant jerks that passed themselves off as scientists told the creationists to go back and find a way to present their idea's scientifically. Some- but not all, definately not all- joined the intelligent design theorists. Now, according to this hypothesis of yours, these creationists did exactly what the snobs told them to do, and its still not acceptable.

At the same time that you "heap contempt" on me with needless name-calling, you essentially acknowledge my point. It wasn't scientists, but the courts, that sent creationists "back". And there was no mandate to "find a way to present their ideas scientifically". NOBODY asked for that. What most of us want, including a huge number of Christians who believe in evolution theory, is for people to keep religion in church where it belongs. There is no need to impose it on the science curriculum.

Quote

All that tells us is that evolutionists are snobs and double minded, and we shouldn't pay them any attention at all. They can't be pleased no matter what you do, so why bother pleasing them at all?

Nobody has asked you to please evolutionists. You have been asked to stop imposing religious doctrine in science classes. It is perfectly reasonable for those who criticize science on religious grounds to make their case in public debate. It is quite another thing for them to insist that the science curriculum be modified to reflect their opinions.

Quote

However, since you both obviously want to take God out of society and that's why you want evolution taught, you've made it into a religous issue, and I suppose we have to discuss it there.

It is quite true that I am an atheist, but that is not why I want evolution theory taught in the schools. Most Christians want it taught in the schools. It is false that biologists support atheism. It is dishonest to suggest that all those Christians who want to leave the science curriculum alone are somehow supporting atheism. Why make such a claim? It is a classic smear tactic. Most people dislike atheism and atheists. So there is a blatant attempt to portray evolution theorists as pro-atheist.

Quote

Or- and this would be the reasonable thing to do, so naturally I'm not counting on this- we could discuss the issue on its merits without snobby, whiny accusations of religious motivations. Failure to do so only speaks to your character. And if I might say, it doesn't say very good things.

I'm not the one calling people names because I disagree with their opinions. Let's try to keep personal attacks out of this.

Quote

So, shall we discuss the merits of the thing, or are we going to descend into elitist attacks on each other's motivations? You both know very well that if you want to take the mud route, I'm more than happy to meet you there. I'm not above it, but in so descending, I will know that the real issue is being skirted.

Whether or not you can raise yourself above it is something that only you can answer. You have invited a discussion on merits, and I heartily endorse that.

Ragnar · « **Reply #39 on:** October 10, 2005, 07:46:16 PM »

Quote from: cimics

Quote
How can you be an atheist and reject evolution at the same time?

Darn good question. I suppose you could be a Raelian

Oh, I've heard of these guys. A bunch of their women posed in Playboy once. They were pretty hot

I think this guy dreamed this up as a clever way to get laid, because they are very open when it comes to sex.

Author Topic: Is Intelligent Design Science? (Read 21628 times)