Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.

I assume you've heard of the Dover trial (national news for weeks and weeks about a year ago) and don't need background in that. Here's a link to Judge Jones' decision: Here's a link to my message containing key excerpts from the ruling: Message 129It's a pretty long message, and so you don't have to peruse the whole thing here are the excerpts from the ruling pertaining to Christians lying under oath: Judge Jones is a conservative Republican, a churchgoer, and a Bush appointee. I'm not sure where the misunderstanding lies, but I've read on through your other messages in the thread, and you repeat this same misconclusion a couple times.Evolution is quite obviously part of science. You argued that string theory is not part of science because you cannot get a degree in string theory. I replied by pointing out that you can't get a degree in evolution, either. You also cannot get degrees in the Big Bang, gravity or the geologic column, all also part of science.What colleges and universities actually offer is a Bachelor of Science degree. Such degrees may or may not state whether your major was physics, geology, biology, etc., it is up to each institution's discretion. And the degrees most certainly never state sub-areas of interest, such as evolution, the Big Bang, gravity and so forth.In other words, the determining factor for whether something is part of science has nothing to do with what is printed on university degrees. What they are doing is lobbying the media, school boards and state legislatures for representation of ID views in public schools. What they are not doing is participating in the process of science. Yes, of course. The explanation is descent with modification and natural selection. Genetics is the mechanism behind heredity. We're not descended from chameleon's or cephalopods, so we never diverged from them. We're so genetically separate from these creatures that all you can say is that we shared a common ancestor hundreds of millions of years ago.The answer to what I think you're actually asking is that the qualities that benefit a creature are enormously dependent upon the existing qualities of that creature, the nature of its genetic library, and the specifics of its environment. A chameleon might evolve the ability to resemble a twig if it lived in a forest but not in a desert. Humans, which are descended from apes, wouldn't have evolved the ability to resemble tree trunks since they could already avoid predators by climbing trees, running, beating them off with clubs, cooperating in groups, etc. Of course it does, and we can discuss this at whatever level of detail you like. Naturally I agree. But ID is not a scientific alternative. IDists would like to skip the step of persuading the scientific community and jump immediately into the classroom. All we're saying is that what you teach is high science class is the current scientific consensus, and at this point in time, ID is not part of that consensus. And given that it isn't trying to be, it never will be.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix one of the ruling excerpts.Edited by Percy, : Fix one of the ruling excerpts.

And so I ask you once again, are you aware that John 10:10 is arguing in this very thread that the designer is God? Are you aware that at Dover Behe said that in his own mind the designer is God? You said earlier that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you can't call this a "disinformation campaign spread by the detractors of ID" when it is people in your own camp spreading the "disinformation".Stubborn insistence is not going to turn this transparent subterfuge into a convincing argument. The only advocates of ID are conservative Christians, the same ones who up till recently were advocating scientific creationism. The Dover trial made this perfectly clear.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify first paragraph.

Well, given that the orbits of the planets around the sun are well observed and understood, there is no longer any basis on which to teach Geocentrism as science (except in a historical context, of course).When Geocentrism was taught as science, however, it did utilise the apparent movement of the sun as evidence to support its hypothesis. ID, on the other hand, has no positive evidence of any kind to impart.

Okay, so what IS the answer? Who is the designer? How does he work?Without an agent or a method, what "answers" does ID have offer?

The problems with Dembski's Filter is that it is undefinable and can also be applied to utter nonsense examples. It is but a joke except to the gullible. For example, I hit a golf shot. The ball lands exactly 64 inches from the hole and exactly 64 inches from the sprinkler head and exactly 64 inches from a divot which is exactly my age if we consider one inch equals a year. Now considering that that hole is 17,316 inches long and an average of 540 inches wide or about 9,350,640 square inches.Now odds of over 9 million to one are so impossible that I must have been aiming for that exact spot and the placement must be intentional. Everything is poorly designed if we look at it as having been designed. There are no examples of good design once we reach the object level.I have said that it might be possible to consider ID if we only look at the systems level and at the lowest, most basic areas even there. If we look at the forces being design, the system of evolution as being design, then perhaps I could make a case for ID at that level.I've discussed that at length here at EvC. (see Message 1 and Message 1 as examples) Well, I don't think I ever used that caption but I would certainly consider it. I do not believe that GOD sits down to design a rose and then sits back and admires his handiwork. You need to remember that when I photograph one flower I reject many hundreds in the same frame because they do not merit capture. I also prune the picture, often then enhance the image and clean it up. Why does that not make GOD awesome. GOD designed a system, one based on random mutations, chance and the filter of Natural Selection that works. It has worked for billions of years. To me that is pretty awesome.If from a theological, engineering or scientific perspective we try to say that GOD designed the object or critter though, I see no way that we could conclude that the designer is anything other than inept and at best, mediocre.If the designer worked for me she would get fired.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That is a good question. Unless we have some idea of what the designer is and what its attributes are, how do we know what to look for when we search for evidence of design?

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

That certainly isn't the case in the UK. My BSc was in 'Cell and Molecular Biology' and I could certainly have done one in 'Evolutionary Biology' if I had wanted to. In many cases the difference is only in one or 2 modules, or even just in the field your final year course supervisor works in, but the distinction in the conferred degree is there.TTFN,WK

John, The Guinea Worm is highly specialized as are most parasites. Their reproductive cycle and sequence of events are multi-step, very complex and adapted to a specific set of circumstances.So I see the ID'st has a limited set of options here:

Extreme rapid evolution. For example the Guinea Worm was sitting in a pond slurping algae until the fall and then "evolved" to adapt a very different specific set of circumstances. The reproduction cycle would have to have changed dramatically. Specialized gear like the ability to manufacture acid to borrow itself thru muscle would have to evolve. The digestive system would have to alter to fit it new "alternative lifestyle".

​

Other examples, of course, would include creatures like the T-Rex would suddenly have to "evolve" teeth, claws, intestines, Jaws, etc to transition from eating fruit/vegies to meat.

​

In addition, prey would have to evolve all the defense mechanisms such as horns, long legs for speed, amour, etc.

​

This all would have to occur in a very short period of time and would be evolution with a capital E. Sounds like a really bad sci-fi.

​

Are these new biological apparatuses Intelligently Designed or not.

​

A Second (or third) creation. At the point of the fall there was a second creation to add to the existing creation all the wonderful diabolical parasites that we have today.

​

If so, who was in charge of this creation God or the devil?

Hi jar. Welcome back. It's a better place with you here. I find your statement contradictory. I don't have a problem with evolution by natural selection but if you throw in random chance as well I have to wonder where is there room for a designer? If it really is random then a designer would have no idea how the design was going to wind up. Like throwing a bunch of metal parts into a dryer and winding up with a watch. Good man that Paley. Why would God just set in motion a process that could wind up with a microbe as being the highest life form, some form of super being with far more intelligence than us or anything in between. I'm much more inclined to believe that if God set the evolutionary process in motion and has not intervened with it since then, He would have known what the end product was going to be.Also much of the discussion seems to assume that what we see now is the finished product. I don't know about you, but I believe that what we see is still a work in progress and that the important part of the creation is not what is now but what will be. The more important part of the creation is the part that isn't physical and that world in which that soul, consciousness, or personality will reside.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Naturally. I've read the opening transcripts twice in the past. I just needed the specifics on the allegation that they perjured themselves. For starters, you are quoting Judge Jones, not the people in question in taped deposition or on court transcripts. Secondly, I thought you were placing in question the expert witnesses, like Behe, not the school board members.In the event that these board members committed perjury, then let justice deal with them. Please explain to me what this one trial and the opinions of school board members have to do with the overall view of ID? That's immaterial. What is that supposed to mean? The ID and evolution debate shouldn't be politicized. So, I guess kudos to Judge Jones who based his decision on how well the trial attorney's and expert witnesses presented their case, rather than base his decision on an agenda. It is apart of science, insomuch that it uses science to corroborate its views. Its not a branch of science. Similarly, ID stems from a scientific argument, as does evolution, but neither is its own branch. The point is that we have people claiming that ID is going to somehow undermine science. That's not possible because ID or evolution aren't branches of science. No one is trying to bring a scientific branch into disrepute. Nothing changes, only the interpretation of what the evidence spells out. They merely use these various branches of science to either refute or corroborate specific claims.The second point is that ID, Big bang, evolution, and string theory, are just that-- theories. They are based on inferences that employ a variety of branches of science to support the overall thesis-- which we should encourage, not stifle. I didn't say, or even allude, that any one of those aren't making scientific inquiries. Of course they are. My reason for mentioning it is that they aren't branches of sciences, they are theories that use utilize those branches. Right, because they're theories. Geology, biology, etc are the branches of science. That's why they say, "I have a B.S. in geology," not a B.S. in hydroplate theory, or wahtever. I agree. I'm merely distinguishing that theories are not themselves branches of science. Really, how much clearer can I be on that? Behe, Dembski, Wells, etc have nothing to do with science? They don't have actual degrees or studied actual science in order to obtain those degrees? You realize that you need advanced degrees in order to teach those subjects, right? You couldn't honestly make that argument that they aren't legitimately in the fields of science anymore than I could say the same about Pennock and Miller. Just because I believe their interpretations of the evidence is skewed doesn't mean I would disrespect them and their efforts by pretending they aren't actually engaged in the endeavors of science.Now, are they also lobbying their viewpoint? Yes, they are, just as Wallace and Huxley were lobbying in defense of evolution over a century ago. What's the problem with that? That's how you get things done. Wouldn't you characterize yourself as a liberal? If so, you should know about the effects of lobbying efforts better than anyone. You can't leave such an open-ended answer and expect that to speak to us. An answer of such brevity is almost as bad as Goddidit.That would be like:Q. How does heredity function?
A. DNA.
Q. Well, yes of course. I understand that. What I mean is, how do the mechanisms function?
A. Through DNA.
Q. Yes, understood. That doesn't explain what comprises DNA and how it all works. I'm curious to know about the mechanisms and the finer aspects.
A. I just told you-- DNA.
Q. *sigh*...... Forget it. Yes, but something else would have been. I'm not merely speaking about humans. I'm speaking about the organism that is most closely related to the Chameleon that doesn't have the procryptic ability. How? Who does nature know what a twig is and that an animal masquerading as one would be a very successful predator if nature is not cognizant? That makes no sense. It seems blatantly obvious that the Mantis, for instance, is a product of design, rather than a cosmic oops. That's a mighty big coincidence, wouldn't you agree? And how would you know that? Aside from which, you would likely agree that reptiles and cephalopods came long before mammals. That means these very successful abilities were around long before the mammal. Why would nature have selected something else when procryptism is markedly effective? "Well, I'm not entirely sure how or why, but I know that evolution is true," is not an answer.

quote:

---

I know this much, however; that evolution does not answer the finer details of how this was even possible.

---

Not really. They just make up ad hoc reasons that sound plausible and stamp their seal of approval. There is no way you could empirically make that deduction without some corroborating evidence. You, like aspects of ID, are making an inference. There is nothing wrong with that. But you can't make such statements with any real semblance of veracity. It may sound reasonable, but I'm not after an opinion.

quote:

---

When the current favorite theory leaves as much unexplained as Darwin does, students must learn that scientific alternatives exist. Failure to mention them is deceitful.” -Brig Klyce

---

Alright, I'll accept that answer. That's completely fair. We don't need any circumventing of progessive steps. So, you would agree that the Discovery Institute is well within the limitations of the law to hone their craft? But, you know what is going to happen next?People like Behe and Dembski have already submitted many peer reviews on many subjects that don't directly mention Intelligent Design in the past. But now, they're branded. And whatever they submit for review will be met with hostility on an a priori basis, rather than a posteriori basis.How can they get around that? Being that I see this whole debate is more of an ideological battle more than a question of how good the science is, it seems that no matter what happens, there will be this factor of bias.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

So what? See, what you're doing is basically trying to make it either illegal or taboo to even mention God. I believe that the Designer is the Judeo-Christian God. But that's just my belief. I would never be able to prove that to you. That doesn't mean that I, John 10:10, Behe or whoever else isn't entitled to our private interpretations. You are confusing two very different things, that's the problem. Proponents of ID can't make substantive arguments by saying that God is the Designer. What they can do, is show people that something of a Higher Cognizance is most parsimonious. Whatever you deduct after that, be it the FSM, flying-pink elephants, God, Allah, the Bogeyman, is a private interpretation. Heck, the Intelligent Designers could be four-legged aliens for all we know. It doesn't matter. Because we don't need to know who made the thing in order to know that it was made. If I found a toaster on the ground, I don't need to know who the manufacturer is in order to know that it was designed.This isn't a clever attempt to smuggle Jesus Christ through the backdoor because you could assign whatever interpretation you want. Science is only interested in the questions it can answer. Answering questions about pure metaphysics can't be explained by science. I fully agree! Anything beyond a Desginer(s) is a theological question, not a scientific one. But we don't have to call something capricious when design is the better answer. I agree. It hasn't worked against me. Really? There aren't peoples of various faiths or political ideologies that advocate ID? And the Dover trial was 1 group. You want to make the sweeping indictment that only creationists are ID'ists simply because they don't agree with evolution.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

How so? Well, all the indications are that random plays a part throughout evolution. The mutation side seems to be unpredictable and on the filter side we also see constantly changing environments punctuated by truly random events like the Siberian Traps or the meteor that splashed down a few hundred miles from me.I think that it is pretty clear that no particular critter or species was some intended product, they were all a surprise. I do believe that as you put it, "a designer would have no idea how the design was going to wind up." Why not? Sure, many people are more comfortable with such a belief. It is nice knowing that some sky-daddy knew it was gonna happen and everything is turning out as expected. But there just is no support that I can see for such a position. If in fact, that is the case it makes GOD or the designer into some pretty cruel creature or pretty damn incompetent. Remember, almost every species supposedly designed failed, they died out, became extinct. A designer that has an almost 100% failure rate in His designs is not too good. Well, since I believe that if there is design it is only at the very basic level, then I would say that design is finished, was finished billions of years ago. As to questions related to stuff like a soul, I just think that's pretty much a waste of time. There is simply no evidence that anything like a soul will ever be demonstrable and if it was, that it would pretty much negate the characteristics most theists attribute to "soul".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Nem, you are sufficiently clear that you do not understand what constitutes science. I don't say this as an insult, but as a scientist to a non-scientist. Please listen to what Percy is saying regarding science... he is correct. You are exhibiting classic confusion over the definition of a scientific theory.

Not anymore. Just because they have degrees and a few published works, doesn't mean that everything they write or say is science. They stopped doing science when they abandoned the scientific method. That's true of all scientists - the science stops when they're no longer using the method. Science is something you do because you're following the method, not something that is the result because you have a degree. It's difficult to imagine that an adult educated in the United States wouldn't at least have the slightest working knowledge of genetics. Are you really saying that this is the case? That when Percy says "genetics", you have absolutely no idea what he's talking about? I suggest, then, that you begin here: Genetics - Wikipediaand work your way down. I imagine that Percy's reference to "genetics" was as brief as it was because genetics is a very large field constituting a depth of very technical knowledge, and suddenly bestowing upon you a full knowledge of genetics was not something he was able to do in one single sentence. You've never heard of random mutation? You've never heard of natural selection? Mantises that didn't look like twigs starved because their prey spotted them before they could strike, and they were outcompeted by mantises that looked more like twigs and could get more food. The more-twig-like mantises had more offspring than those that were less-twig-like, because they could feed more offspring and live longer.As a result, mantises became, over time, more twig-like.You've never heard any of this? This whole line of reasoning is something you've never encountered before?Honestly? Even the creationists can usually come up with examples of natural selection in action. It's surprising that you've rejected evolution while knowing literally nothing about it. There's nothing coincidental about it. Better-adapted organisms survive to the detriment of lesser-adapted ones. Surely you've heard the term "survival of the fittest"? That's what they're talking about - better-adapted organisms succeed to the detriment of lesser-adapted ones. You've never seen a human climb a tree? Or run? Or use a tool? Or cooperate in groups? For one thing, it's not that effective. The cells don't "update" fast enough to work when the organism is moving, for instance; so camouflage abilities become a lot less useful for predators who have to run down their prey or have a metabolism (like mammals) where they can't simply wait around for the food to walk up to them.Remember too that nature doesn't plan ahead. Just because you can see the potential for future usefulness for an ability doesn't mean that's a positive adaptation. For instance, surely the usefulness of eyes cannot be in doubt. But in total darkness, eyes are useless. Which is why cave fish have no eyes. In total darkness, there's no selection pressure for eyes, because they have no use in that situation. In fact growing eyes represents a waste of resources for an organism, so organisms that had no eyes, because they had a slight advantage over the sighted fish, came to dominate the population.Natural selection depends on environment. That's the basic lesson of all that. Until you're thinking in terms of the interactions of organisms and their environments, you won't really understand how evolution explains things.

I know that you are a Christian so I have to wonder where you see God involved in this. I don't agree that it is clear that any given species is not an intended product. There is no way of knowing and is only personal opinion. Incidentally we can say that the mutations occurred but we can't scientifically say that the mutations were either random or caused. Do you start pounding nails into wood without having any idea why. I just don't believe that a designer with the intelligence to create all that we see would either. A life is a life. Just because some species failed to survive because of natural selection doesn't mean that the overall creation is flawed. Other life has taken their place. If evolution is a true theory then we have to accept that the process isn't finished as it must be still ongoing so we can be sure that we haven't seen the finished product.Just because there is no physical evidence that we can discern doesn't mean that the soul isn't reality. Cavediver wrote in another thread that he sees our universe as being projected. Who can say for sure what is behind the projector but I'm inclined to believe that it is a world more real, (whatever that might mean), than this one.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.