What exactly is ID?

This exchange between you and Taq began with your claim that there's no evidence for universal common ancestry. At one point you supported your claim by saying that "bears and alligators do not and can not reproduce." It seems that it is your impression that universal common ancestry cannot be true unless distinct species can reproduce with each other. Rest assured that this is not an implication of universal common ancestry. Do you have any objections not based upon this or other misunderstandings and lack of knowledge?If ID is only design detection and is not a theory with explanatory and predictive power, then why are you arguing against universal common descent in a thread about the definition of ID?--Percy

Hi Brad H,Before replying to your message I'd like to address some old business. Do you now understand what was wrong with your coin flip and writer analogies, the ones you presented in Message 1003?We're actually discussing two different topics in this thread. One is clearly defining ID. The other is finding problems with the offered definitions of ID.You and Smooth Operator have offered extremely similar definitions of ID. This is the one you just presented: I think most would agree that the information in DNA is very complex and very specific, and I think I can provide a legitimate scientific definition of ID that even you'll agree with: ID is the hypothesis that the very complex and very specific information contained in DNA was designed by an intelligence.ID is a very intriguing hypothesis, one worthy of scientific investigation. Problems only arise when IDists skip the "scientific investigation" part of science and try to skip forward to claims of validated theory by a public campaign of popular press books, presentations, and debates. I'm sure that many IDists, like yourself and Smooth Operator here in this thread, believe that ID had already been scientifically validated, but that can't possibly be true because there's no ID footprint in the scientific literature where the results of scientific investigation are reported so they can be vetted by peer review and replication. Paul Nelson, a fellow of the Discovery Institute, says this about ID: I quote this to you because you yourself have just echoed this sentiment: It's responses like yours and Paul Nelson's that causes scientists to just throw up their hands in exasperation and ask, "How can you claim to be science if your ideas have no testable real world implications?"In the Who won this evolution/ID debate? thread I outline the criticisms Sternberg raised concerning whale evolution in a recent debate, but if whale evolution didn't happen the way evolutionary biologists and paleontologists think it did, then what really did happen?The ID answer is that we can't know how the designer created and implemented his designs, and that would be a legitimate answer if there were any scientific research behind it, but is there?Science does have to accept what has been shown to be impossible to know. For example, it has been scientifically demonstrated that we can't precisely know both a particle's momentum and position at the same time. The more precisely we measure one the less precisely we can measure the other. It has also been scientifically demonstrated that we can't know which spin an entangled particle will have when it is observed unless we first measure the spin of the other particle. There are mountains of technical literature describing the research establishing both these things that have been scientifically established that we cannot know.So where are the mountains of technical literature establishing that we cannot scientifically know who the designer is and how he designed and implemented?It seems that the situation is pretty much as Paul Nelson described, that you've got a "bag of intuitions" but no theory, no research program, and not really much legitimate research. All the topics that come up in ID discussions like complex specified complexity and irreducible complexity and so forth never appear in the scientific literature, but only in popular press books directed at the lay public.Despite this lack of any research history people like Steve Meyer still claim that ID is real science, but it isn't the kind of science that scientists think is science because Meyer wants to abandon methodological naturalism so he can include mechanisms for which he has no evidence, which leaves you with, using Paul Nelson's word, "intuitions." Intuitions have a prominent history in guiding scientific research, but intuitions are not research. Really? Say you have a few billion bacteria and all of them divide once. The new generation of bacteria should have millions of mutations, usually only zero, one or two per bacteria. No matter how you define CSI, do you see the inevitability that some of those mutations must represent an increase in CSI?Please don't bother responding yet because I'm going to assume your answer is no and modify the example slightly. Let's assume that our bacterial population is descended from a single bacteria that has had its genome degraded through modification in the lab of a single nucleotide that left it unable to produce a beneficial (but not essential) protein. In ID terms the CSI of the bacteria has declined. Do you understand how easily the millions of mutations in the next generation might reverse that single nucleotide change in one of the offspring? And that there will be a new generation of bacteria several times every hour, making it not just likely that that nucleotide will eventually be reversed but inevitable? And that this process is entirely natural and is just the "descent with modification" part of evolution?To paraphrase Pogo, "Evolution has found the designer and he is evolution."--Percy

I'm sure everyone is puzzled why you're asking for evidence for something that no one has ever claimed happens. Distant species should never reproduce with each other, and no one on either side of the discussion believes that they should. Common ancestry is not a claim that distant species should be able to reproduce.Common ancestry is an interpretation of the fossil and genetic records that indicate that species that are now distant were once the same species. Organisms of the common ancestral species could most certaintly reproduce because they were of the same species. To emphasize this point let me address what you say next: That bears and alligators share a common ancestor is not a claim that long, long ago in the depths of time bears and alligators could reproduce. As you trace bear and alligator evolution back through time the predecessor species become more and more similar until finally they are the same species. That ancestral species is neither bear nor alligator but something very different from both.But it seems that this discussion of common ancestry is irrelevant. I thought you were discussing it because you thought it had something to do with ID, but it turns out you're discussing it only because "he brought it up." If you think ID has no bearing on common ancestry, then the next time someone brings it up just tell them that it's not relevant to the topic.--Percy

Here at EvC Forum we try to keep discussion on-topic. You've been given a lot of leeway in this thread, please don't abuse it.According to you ID is a method of design detection with no broader implications or predictive ability. Unless you have something to add to that I think you're done.--Percy

You mean you never said those precise words? Of course not. But that is precisely what you said. This is from your Message 1031 where you tell me that ID not only does not explain or make any predictions about the history or life on Earth, but also that it is only about design detection: You elaborate on how limited ID is in your Message 1038: Now in your last message you also say: So your definition of ID is a way of detecting design in many fields of science that does not have any bearing on the theory of evolution generally or common ancestry specifically. Do I have that right?If I have this right, then please stop discussing common ancestry in this thread. If you'd like to discuss common ancestry then please propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.--Percy

Great. So tell us what testable predictions ID makes. Boy, talk about not reading the very message you're replying to. It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere in this message chain I mention the geological distribution of life, but here again is my question from your Message 1031 where you actually quote it word for word: See the question in the passage from me that you quoted? Let me repeat it again: Since this thread is about developing a clear picture of what ID is, why don't you tell us how ID explains the recorded history of change over time that you allude to here.Now examine your response to this inquiry: "ID is a science of design detection. Nothing more. Nothing less."You go on to say even more which I quoted in my previous message, but let me quote it again, more selectively this time: So now I've quoted a couple of times where in response to my inquiry about what ID says about the history of life you carefully explain that ID and evolution are "two totally different fields of inquiry".But now in your latest message you're changing your story and saying something completely different: So now you're saying that ID *does* have something to say about evolution. Specifically, you're now saying that ID has something very precise to say about the history of life on Earth, claiming that ID says common descent is impossible.So here's the question once again, and please don't yank me through another series of three or four evasive and misleading posts: What is the ID explanation for the history of life on Earth, and more specifically, what is the ID explanation for why common descent is impossible?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I think your problem is that you say whatever is expedient at the time. Here's you saying that common descent is impossible in Message 1092: So, reinterpreting the above in light of your reemphasis that you have no problem with common descent, this is apparently saying that ID states that evolution's removal of the designer from the process is impossible.I would say it a bit differently, that evolution is a theory that explains the evidence through a process of descent with modification and natural selection, while ID is a theory that explains the evidence through the intervention of a designer. You're in effect claiming that a theory that doesn't include a designer is impossible, so if ID has evidence of the designer then this is the time to introduce it, but what we usually hear from IDists is that we cannot know the identity of the designer or how he designed. Yes, we know. And what happens if you project this requirement back in time? Let's say that life on Earth was created by an intelligence. Where did that intelligence come from? Maybe, following Shermer's example from the November debate, that intelligence came from Antares (a nearby star). Maybe intelligent aliens from Antares came to Earth a few billion years ago and placed the first life on this planet.But since there must have been an intelligence at the start, Antarean life must also have come from an intelligence, so where did the Antarean life come from? A planet orbitting a star in the Andromeda galaxy maybe? And where did that life come from? And the life before that and before that?After a while we're back to the plasma of the Big Bang before there were atoms, and there was no life anywhere to create the next life. So where did that first life in the universe come from?At this point most IDists concede that they believe the designer is God, and at that point they've definitely left the realm of anything supported by scientific evidence, although they'd already done that when they posited a designer for life on Earth in the first place. All four are predictions made after the fact and aren't predictions at all, plus all four are consistent with evolution. Does ID make any predictions that are different from evolution?AbE: To be more clear concerning point 1, evolution is consistent with specification and complexity, since evolutionary solutions must by necessity be very specific to the requirements of the environment and since competition generates increasing complexity in a way analogous to escalating arms races, but evolution is not consistent with the irreducible complexity of Behe for which there is no evidence.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add AbE comment.Edited by Percy, : Fix message link.

I didn't want to put too fine a point on it, but agreed. SO called his list predictions of ID, but I didn't say they were predictions of evolution, just that they were consistent with evolution.About point 3, I interpreted it as a claim that ID predicted things like viruses inserting genes, though of course ID interprets it as the designer inserting genes.About point 4, there's a wide range of the proportion of functional DNA that would be consistent with evolution. My guess is that evolution would predict that the amount of functional DNA in any species would be a function of the specific changes that DNA had experienced over time, and that therefore we should find wide variation in nature. For example, there's the amoeba that has a huge amount more DNA than humans. If amoeba and human have roughly the same proportion of functional DNA then that would mean the amoeba has far more functional DNA than humans. This doesn't seem likely, so I think the prediction make sense, what do you think?But the main point I was making was that SO's supposed predictions were after the fact. ID and creationism never make a prediction first then go looking for it and find it.--Percy

Maybe I'm just in a post lunch funk, but those last two sentences read like the opposite of what I thought you were trying to say. If I've gotten this backwards then please ignore and apologies, etc...--Percy

Right. But then you deny that ID has anything at all to say about a designer: The question I've been seeking an answer to for lo these many messages is very simple: If ID has nothing to say about a designer, how can it say that "design without a designer" is impossible. Isn't that saying something about the designer?--Percy

Hi Smooth Operator,The lack of curiosity exhibited by the ID community concerning the designer and his design techniques is very strange. Somehow, knowing nothing about the designer or his techniques, you're nonetheless certain that learning anything about either one is impossible.Things that actually happen leave behind evidence. We can examine DNA of different species and figure out the structure of the nested hierarchy of relatedness. Why can't IDists examine DNA and figure out how the designer designed? Doesn't the nature and position and timing and effects of a mutation tell us anything about how the designer put that mutation there?There are some things in nature we cannot know. For example, we can't simultaneously know the position and momentum of a particle, but there are mountains of research demonstrating that this is something we cannot know.So where are the mountains of research demonstrating that the designer and the way he designed are things we cannot know?You can insist all you like that these are things impossible to know, but without a foundation of research demonstrating that this is so it sounds like a claim intended to deflect attention away from the infinite regression that can only end at God thereby demonstrating the religious nature of ID.Moreover, this unevidenced claim about the designer and the way he designed is unlike anything in science. Darwin didn't say about evolution that it's impossible to know how nature evolved adaptations. Geneticists didn't say it's impossible to know how genomes are changed over time.IDists individually and as a group can dig in their heels and maintain this claim if they like, but it's just too-obvious flim-flam from the perspective of science. Like the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz you're commanding, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," when that's precisely where everyone should be directing their attention.--Percy

Hi Smooth Operator,You seem to be a bit lost. The question is why IDists claim it isn't possible to know anything about the designer or how he designed. Can you name any legitimate field of science that makes an analogous claim in the absence of supporting evidence? You can't, right? So where is the research demonstrating that the designer and the way he designed are things we cannot know?As an example, biologists take our knowledge of DNA and RNA from modern cells and apply it in attempts at unraveling the mystery of life's origin. Why can't IDists do something similar for the designer?--Percy

Hi Smooth Operator,Sorry for this second reply to the same message, but I was short of time last night, and the misconceptions and mistakes expressed in your email that I ignored but that prompted my comment about you being a bit lost aren't directly related to the main topic.But correcting them could help the discussion move forward, so here we go. If this is the question you truly meant to ask, then the answer is obvious. Almost all investigators into the origin of life are evolutionists, so the answer is that evolutionists do deal with the origin of life. And evolutionists on this board discuss abiogenesis all the time. Like right now.But I think the question you meant to ask is why evolution and abiogenesis are considered separate fields within biology. I think the main reason is because evolution deals with life processes that can be directly observed and about which we've developed a fair understanding, while abiogenesis deals with non-life processes that aren't at all well understood or even identified. You evidently lost track of the original question after I restated it in abbreviated form a couple times later in my post. The criticism of ID isn't that it doesn't know how the designer designed. The criticism is that ID claims it isn't possible to know how the designer designed.Not knowing something is the standard situation in science. This will be as true for abiogenesis as it is for ID. But abiogenesis researchers study the available evidence as they attempt to unravel the mystery, including the structure of DNA. Knowledge about DNA is essential because whatever processes took place in the early history of life, their end result obviously had to include DNA.ID researchers could do the same thing. They could take what we know about DNA to inform their studies of how the designer designed. But they don't do that. They just say, "This is irreducibly complex and has complex specified information, therefore it was designed and that's all we can know. Further investigation would be fruitless." Well, then how do mutations happen? By evolutionary processes? That kind of leaves ID with nothing to do, since without mutations no species can ever split off into a different species. Or do you believe that each species was an act of special creation, which is actually just your old time creationism. Yeah, well, but you're creating your own eclectic definition of ID that has nothing to do with how IDists like Behe and Dembski from the Discovery Institute define it. This is an artifact of your tendency to argue in whatever way is expedient at the time, rather than in a way that is both internally and externally consistent.For instance, following the Discovery Institute's guidance the Dover school board produced this fairly poor (because of its focus on the origin of life) but now well known definition: This is from the Discovery Institute's website (What Is Intelligent Design? | Intelligent Design): It would seem that the Discovery Institute disagrees with you that ID is nothing more than design detection that has no bearing on evolution.If you're going to insist on slicing and dicing arguments into individual sentences then you're going to continue losing the sense of the arguments being made. The central question is why IDists insist that we cannot know anything about the nature of the designer or how he designed. Sometimes I express this in shortened form and inquire about the identity of the designer, but it's the same question. I don't want to know that the designer was Frank Smith at 511 Main Street. I just want to know why IDists think it's impossible to know anything about the designer.Even evolutionists have no trouble taking the existence of a designer as a starting premise and reaching conclusions about him/her/it/them. Obviously the designer chose to design with biological materials. And he designed in a nested hierarchy (something I know you reject but which is acknowledged by the Discovery Institute who knows a bit more about ID than you do (heck, even evolutionists know more about ID than you do), see Testing the Orchard Model and the NCSE’s Claims of “Nested Patterns” Supporting a “Tree of Life” | Evolution News). And we know something about the location of the designer. He has to be on or somewhere near planet Earth.And so your misconceived example of the identity of the designer of the soccer ball completely misses the point. No one is asking you to identify a specific entity as the designer. But just as we can examine the soccer ball and determine the manufacturer, and we can then go the manufacturer and determine who or which team designed that soccer ball, and we can find references to soccer balls in history to find the origins of the first soccer balls. We're not looking for a specific individual, we're just trying to figure out as much as we can about the designers of the soccer ball. There are probably very old soccer balls hidden in attics and museums that would inform the investigation.But IDists insist that there's nothing we can know about the nature of the designer, which is just a smokescreen for the infinite regression that leads to God. And IDists like Dembski and Behe concede that they believe the designer is God. You're caught still maintaining the smokescreen after the jig is already up.Please, if you choose to reply, do not respond to individual sentences. My arguments span multiple sentences and paragraphs. Please respond to the arguments. If you quote more than two or three times from this message then you're missing the arguments and responding to sentences.--Percy

Hi Smooth Operator,I'm beginning to wonder what bizarre defect in my psychological makeup is causing me to continue a dialog with you. You exhibit a cycle that gives no indication of diminishing, yet here I am, apparently poised to reply yet again while expecting something different to happen this time.The cycle is simple. Someone says something, and you either misinterpret it or throw in an unrelated red herring.So they reply and clarify, and you do it again.So they reply and clarify yet again, and you do it again.Let's take this little example here: I'm not sure what the problem is. Is it difficult for you to dissect arguments longer than one sentence?Boiling it down for clarity, I said: You reply: Clearly you didn't understand the question. I could clarify yet again, but until you help me understand how your response makes any sense in the context of the question there isn't any point to responding to this or anything in your message since it is full of equally puzzling malapropisms, but on the scale of concepts rather than words. It's like you're using something that feels like logical thinking to you but only to you.So I'll settle for simply restating my original point. Unlike any other field of science, without any evidence ID states a priori what it isn't possible to know, specifically, anything about the designer. Here's a quote from Of Pandas and People: Can you name any other field of science that holds an equivalent position as a basic tenet?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

The position of intelligent design is that it is not possible to know anything about the nature of the designer. SETI has no such equivalent position where in the absence of any evidence they claim there's something it isn't possible to know. Why don't I give you the setup question again and you can give it another try.Unlike any other field of science, without any evidence ID states a priori what it isn't possible to know, specifically, anything about the designer. Here's a quote from Of Pandas and People: Can you name any other field of science that holds an equivalent position as a basic tenet?--Percy