Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory

Heheheh... please share any response they give.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm not sure how much this really resemble any sort of change in emphasis. James Randi suggests here that the commonly used phrasing showin the Church's support of evolution elides some important points which suggest that in fact the Catholic Church has always had a fairly firm intelligent design agenda.TTFN,WK

Hmmmmmmm, jar?If they at least stay out of the way of science and say "though it looks unguided it is", thus sticking to the metaphysical, they'd at least be ahead of IDists.AbE: They also appear to be avoiding any support for man being individually created on the spot, or a more youthful earth, which some ID personalities engage in.This message has been edited by holmes, 07-11-2005 12:11 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The priest doing the homily yesterday mentioned that "intelligent design is especially interesting to Catholics" after complaining that many people who "believe in evolution do so almost as a religion." Luckily the pastor of the church is considerably more liberal than this fellow, so we shouldn't hear more of that.However, the impression I get is that this priest was endorsing a definition of ID as
theistic evolution + anthropic principle = intelligent design,
rather than the nonsense spouted by the Discovery Institute and the Wedge. At least, I hope so.

"Welcome to the Big Tent, Mr...""Church, Roman Catholic Church"."Certainly, if you'll step right this way to our Hall of Obfuscation Mr. Church, we're getting ready to begin."Chris

This is where I get somewhat confused. It seems to me that evolutionary theory states simply that we have evolved over time from basic life forms. This has happened primarily because of genetic mutations. As I understand it in the most simplistic of terminology that is evolutionary theory.The question of how those mutations occurred is not part of Darwinism, once again, as I understand it. The question of whether the mutations occurred by a "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection", or whether there is an "Intelligent Designer" manipulating these mutations would, as I see it be another question entirely, and frankly, I can't see why science would have any position on that.My guess is this isn't a change in the position of the Catholic Church at all. If some evolutionists have extended something beyond what Darwin said so that Darwinism has become Atheistic instead of Agnostic then obviously the Catholic Church won't agree. It sounds to me as if the Catholic Church still supports theistic evolution but not atheistic evolution, which is something of a no-brainer.

I guess you are trying to define a difference between Darwin and modern evolutionary theory, based on Darwin's inability (or disinterest) to discuss possible sources of mutation?There's not much debate now that as far as evolutionary theory goes, all we have evidence for is genetic mutations as a source for most physical mutations, and that genetic mutations occur randomly as a natural part of the reproductive process.There could of course be a guiding "hand" in the mutation process that is as yet undiscovered (intelligent or otherwise), and it could be that there is one that will always remain invisible. Science will not address it as long as it remains "invisible."The problem here is that the cardinal in question is not just supporting theistic evolution, but using terminology from and indeed has now been identified as working for the Discovery Institute, which involves Intelligent Design theory. That is more than simply theistic evolution as it in part argues that there is scientific evidence for a guiding intelligence in the mutation process.That would be the church moving into science to make claims regarding scientific findings, and false ones at that.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I guess that I'm unclear on the terminology. I've just always assumed that as a Christian who accepts theistic evolution, I would fall into the broader category as someone who accepts ID.My own definition for ID, would be largely synonymous with Theism with no regard for the process.

Intelligent Design is different than simply believing that living organisms have been designed by an intelligence.Forgetting for a moment that the movement has specific religious and political overtones, it has a very specific scientific position. ID states that there are "devices" which they have discovered which can detect that an object has been created by an intelligent being, and when applied to biological organisms (or parts of them) indicate that they were created.These "devices" are not as specific as their claim. It comes down to some criteria by which an object's "complexity" is measured and a certain amount means it is most certainly created. This "complexity" has also not been specified, yet they do insist that the results are in.This is of course in addition to simply criticizing elements of evolutionary theory, but that does not actually build their own model.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Which is ironic since they call it 'Specified complexity'.TTFN,WK

Thanks holmes. That's helpful. It sounds to me then that there are those who take Intelligent Design and try to make it scientific and those who take evolution and try to make it theological. IMHO both are wrong.Maybe at some point in time the two will come together, but I think that we are still a long way from that.

I have to agree and it's not easy to say so.One might argue that the Cardinal is either objecting to "random" in the sense of "purposeless", or "random" in the sense of "stochastic" (or both).The language is imprecise enough to admit of either interpretation.If it was intended solely in the former sense, this is essentially nothing new, and indeed I'd argue that questions of purpose in evolution are outside the scope of strictly scentific inquiry.But, the tone of the piece is polemical enough to at least suggest the latter sense was intended. It seems the Cardinal is throwing down the gauntlet to the scientific comunity to some degree.If indeed it was intended in the latter sense, this is a serious problem and a step towards obscurantism.Stochastic processes play a role in not only evolution as it is understood presently, but in many areas of physics as well. Does the Cardinal intend to call into question quantum theory, nonlinear dynamics, or nonequilibrium thermodynamics as well? All fields with not only voluminous theoretical, observational and experimental evidence, but practical applications including the devices we are using to conduct this discussion?It should be recalled that the statements of an individual Cardinal do not rise to the level of official Vatican doctrine; only Papal or conciliar documents, or documents produced by a Vatican theological commission, do.Nevertheless, remarks by a Cardinal carry considerable influence, and personally I'm quite concerned and will have to follow developments closely on this.

No one can say they are short on sense of irony. They call their main organization Discovery Institute... though there are no research facilities and no discoveries being made.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The SETI program was set up to search for coded radio signals in space. The signal they are looking for has to be repetitive or in a sequence. It can not be random. When they find this signal they will deem it came from an Inteligent source. So using the same reasoning, if we find a coded source, it means someone inteligent made it. DNA is coded information. Someone made that information and put it there. Information can not come from nothing.Also just a thought.
~A cell needs information to be made.
~Information has to be stored somewhere. (In a cell)Using the evolutionary model, how can this start.

*BZZZZT*Sorry, wrong answer, but thank you for playing.There are any number of astronomical objects which could create signals which are repetitive or sequential, think about pulsars.In fact there have been a number of signals which have matched SETIs first pass criteria based on the elimination of random noise and the direction of travel of the signal across the reciever, but none that have been traceable to an alien intelligence. A modern cell certainly needs the information contained in DNA to be made but a number of cellular structures, such as the phospholipid bilayers seen in cell membranes can form simply due to their own chemical composition and environment and can go on to form micelles which resemble the phospholipd bilayer.The corrolary statement of your second part is false, the information must be there, but it doesn't have to be in a cell. It could be in a genetic material such as RNA or DNA, although such materials need a relatively protective environment taht could be equated to a cell. Some information could even, as I suggested before, be imparted from the environment in which the cell forms.You might want to familiarise yourself with some of the work the prooponent of ID have already done on defining the sort of things that might constitute a valid 'signal' in DNA or biology in general, because it is considerbaly better developed than your tentative steps along this path. Most of your post just consists of hefty chunks of assertion with absoloutely no evidence to support it.TTFN,WK