Analyzing Intelligent Design {a structural construction of ID theory}

Hi sidelined,Some have denied that ID is a hypothesis, but I think the quoted sentence makes clear claims about the natural world.In order for those claims to be tested, we need:1. A theoretical model for the distinction between purposeful design and unpurposeful design in the natural world.2. An empirical test that permits us to distinguish between purposeful design by an intelligent cause, and unpurposeful design by an unintelligent cause, in the natural world.I'd like some proponents of ID to address these specific points. Point 1 can be fairly mathematical and abstract. Point 2 would ideally consist of a number of empirical tests that can detect purposeful design in a number of different types of data (molecular, ecological, behavioural, etc). But all of these tests should be based explicitly in the model described in point 1.What would a satisfying theoretical model of ID look like? We might begin by describing two separate dimensions to ID. The first dimension consists of purposeful/unpurposeful design. The second dimension consists of intelligent/unintelligent design. These two dimensions give us four clear types of design that might be present in the natural world:a) Unpurposeful unintelligent design
b) Purposeful unintelligent design
c) Unpurposeful intelligent design
d) Purposeful intelligent designPerhaps an ID theorist could elaborate on this scheme, and try to draw some distinctions in the kinds of artifacts that would result from each type of design in the natural world, and how we might distinguish between them.Mick[edited by mick to change the word "information" into "artifacts", in the last sentence. I think it is too early to be discussing "information"]This message has been edited by mick, 05-09-2005 01:26 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 05-09-2005 01:42 PM

Sidelined, be careful. This is a warning from a Darwinist. Just because ID theorists have this simplistic view of design doesn't mean that you have to have it.Monsanto crops and Dolly the sheep were intelligently designed. The important point is that Darwinism doesn't preclude intelligent design. It only remains for theologically-oriented ID-theorists to explain why the "design" has to be carried out supernaturally.

Yes. That's right.Have you noticed that no ID supporters have responded to your post so far? It is because you set them the challenge of outlining the theoretical basis and empirical basis of intelligent design in a biological context.They cannot do this. In post number 2 I tried to move the debate into neutral theoretical territory. But they don't want to get involved.The simple reason is that they are charlatans. They are frauds. They are afraid of putting thier ideas down on paper. They are terrified of empricism. They are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.This message has been edited by mick, 05-09-2005 08:23 PM

Hi Jerry, Troy,Yes I apologise for the namecalling. I decided to take a few days off the forum as it's clearly just winding me up.Maybe I will post again in a week or so.CheersMick

Hi EZscience, I've never been entirely comfortable with the idea that Darwinism does not account for "origins". It is true that Darwinism doesn't have much to say about the origin of matter, the origin of the universe, etc., and that is quite right because Darwinism is a theory of heredity and not a theory of physics.But I don't understand why Darwinism should not account for the origin of life. Presumably most uf us Darwinists believe that life evolved into existence. That is certainly my belief, and the belief of all biologists I know. The origin of life is a biological as well as physical problem, and I see no reason why Darwinism should not be brought to bear on it.In their excellent book "The major transitions in evolution" (which I highly recommend to everybody), Maynard Smith and Szathmary present evolutionary hypotheses for a number of "origins". Some hypotheses are more complete than others, and some are more testable than others, but they are all evolutionary hypotheses:a) origin of life
b) origin of genetic code
c) origin of cells
d) origin of nuclei, mitosis and organelles
e) origin of sex
f) origin of symbiosis
g) origin of developmental processes
h) origin of heredity
i) origin of social behaviour
j) origin of languageWhat's more, these Darwinian origin theories appear to be more realistic (ie. in line with what we know about the biological and physical world) and more falsifiable than competing ID claims.Mickadded in edit - Jerry, i took your advice and went for a swim. I even followed it with a cold shower. I think it worked This message has been edited by mick, 05-12-2005 11:48 AM

Hi PaulK, Darwinism doesn't require life. It just requires a variable heritable substance and a mechanism of selection. The heritable substance does not have to be living, so we have no need to stretch our definition of life.Mick

yes, our problem will be settling on a definition of life!But there are plenty of self-replicating substances that we would probably agree are not living. For example Rebek and collaborators have created a self-replicating ester. So this guy self-replicates. There is also a strong selective pressure on the molecule, in that faulty formation of a new molecule (for example by missing of one of the subunits) presumably results in a loss of replicating ability.So in the ester we have a heritable substance (the ester itself) and a selective mechanism (strong selection for maintenance of replication functionality). This is a Darwinian system, pure and simple, and it ain't alive. That is fair enough. The chemical basis for the origin of non-living replicators must be fascinating (unfortunately I'm too dumb to understand it myself). But it seems reasonable to suppose that life did evolve from a non-living replicator. I mean, it had to come from somewhere, didn't it?Darwinism doesn't REQUIRE abiogenesis, but Darwinist principles were probably involved in abiogensis, which did indeed occur at some point.Mick

One problem is that "explaining the origin of life" is an incredibly broad and vague question.Some components of the origin of life that interest me are (in no particular order) the origin of nucleotide strings, the origin of genes, the origin of translation and the origin of reproduction. These are all questions about the origin of life, because these features are diagnostic of life as we know it.Presumably there was life before there was DNA, before there were genes, and before there was translation. So these questions are rightly posed as biological questions.I'm not quite sure what ID would have to say about the origin of life. Presumably that nucleotides, genes, translation and reproduction were designed by a higher intelligence?Perhaps Jerry (or somebody else, sorry to keep picking on Jerry here ) can clarify what he means when he says that ID is useful for looking at "origins".Mick

EZscience,Please contact me at xxxxxCheers!Mickedited by mick to remove personal email addressThis message has been edited by mick, 05-13-2005 12:31 AM

Hi Jerry, You are right to say that there is no Darwinist biology. Darwinism is a product of biology, and it is a product of the scientific method. It is not something external to biology that was forced upon the natural world. The Darwinian theories were developed by scientists who examined the natural world, and tried to come up with a theory to explain what they saw.Darwinism just happens to be the theory of choice within biology, because it seems to work pretty well. There may be alternative theories, but they aren't as good. There is no such thing as Darwinist biology, because Darwinism was created by biologists and only exists in the framework of the scientific method. I'm sure I don't have to repeat this, but "Darwinism is a theory, and not a fact". It is a scientific theory that may or may not be an accurate description of nature.In this respect, ID (in its contemporary incarnation as described, for example, by the discovery institute) is very different to Darwinism.The kind of ID that is promoted by the discovery institute is NOT a product of biology, and it is NOT a product of the scientific method. ID is something external to biology and science that has been forced upon the natural world by non-scientists who have their own political and religious agenca. ID is not the theory of choice in biology, because it doesn't perform very well.That's the big difference. Darwinism is a product of biology and the scientific method. ID is not a product of biology, and it is not a product of the scientific method. Darwinism is internal to biology. ID is external to biology.Mick

You have not shown that evolutionary theory is incompatible with biology. And I'm pretty certain that evolutionary biology is not "19th century thinking".Since Darwin's time, evolutionary biologists have engaged in a long process of communication and interchange with other scientific disciplines including population genetics, taxonomy, bioinformatics, molecular biology, ecology etc. etc. Over the years evolutionary biology has been transformed into something that the nineteenth century Darwinists would not recognise. If we were able resurrect Darwin for a moment, and ask him to read the latest issue of a journal such as Molecular Biology and Evolution he would not understand a word of it. You have argued elsewhere that ID has been around since Aristotle. We might wonder then, why ID has not engaged in the kind of scientific development over 2300 years that evolution achieved in 150. I think this point is quite relevant for this thread. What is the cause of the retardation of ID's theoretical and practical development over the past 2300 years?Best wishesMick